environmental stewardship and well-being...3 designing indicators. impact indicators are complex and...
TRANSCRIPT
Environmental stewardship
and well-being
Prepared for: Ministry for the Environment and Manaaki Whenua Landcare
Research
February 2021
Revised may 2021
This report was jointly funded by the Ministry for the Environment and Manaaki Whenua Strategic Science
Investment Funding
Environmental stewardship and well-being
Contract Report: LC3901
Anne-Gaelle Ausseil, Suzie Greenhalgh, Pam Booth, Oshadhi Samarasinghe
Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research
Alison Collins
Ministry for the Environment
Reviewed by:
Sandra Lavorel
Portfolio Leader - Climate Change Adaptation &
Mitigation
Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research
Approved for release by:
Sam Carrick
Portfolio Leader - Characterising Land Resources
Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research
Disclaimer
This report has been prepared by Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research for the Ministry for the
Environment. If used by other parties, no warranty or representation is given as to its accuracy and no
liability is accepted for loss or damage arising directly or indirectly from reliance on the information in it.
- iii -
Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................ v
1 Introduction and context .........................................................................................................................1
2 Project scope ................................................................................................................................................1
3 Background: the NZ context ...................................................................................................................2
3.1 Treasury’s well-being priorities ................................................................................................................... 2
3.2 Environmental reporting ............................................................................................................................... 5
3.3 Exploring how some government initiatives link people to nature ............................................. 6
4 International initiatives tracking links between people and nature ........................................9
5 Exploring the ecosystem services concept for well-being indicators .................................. 11
5.1 Terminology used .......................................................................................................................................... 11
5.2 A review of environmental indicators in New Zealand ................................................................... 13
5.3 Linking natural capital to well-being in the LSF ................................................................................. 13
6 A proposed process with stakeholders to prioritise indicators .............................................. 15
6.1 Framing .............................................................................................................................................................. 16
6.2 Prioritising ecosystem services or NCP ................................................................................................. 20
6.3 Identifying well-being indicators ............................................................................................................. 22
7 Testing the prioritisation and indicator design ............................................................................ 24
7.1 Workshop with key stakeholders ............................................................................................................. 24
7.2 Review of relevance of ES/NCP to well-being .................................................................................... 32
8 Application ................................................................................................................................................. 34
8.1 Rapid review of nature’s contributions to people in post-COVID19 economic recovery
initiatives ............................................................................................................................................................ 34
8.2 Environmental reporting gap analysis ................................................................................................... 36
8.3 An approach for designing indicators with MfE and StatsNZ ...................................................... 39
9 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 40
9.1 Challenges and opportunities ................................................................................................................... 40
9.2 Links with te ao Māori frameworks ......................................................................................................... 41
9.3 Future development of the process to link nature to well-being ............................................... 42
10 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. 43
11 Glossary of terms ..................................................................................................................................... 44
12 References .................................................................................................................................................. 46
- iv -
Appendix 1. Indicators from the Living Standards Framework .......................................................... 51
Appendix 2. From the MEA to IPBES frameworks ................................................................................... 52
Appendix 3. IPBES Nature’s Contribution to People definitions and categories......................... 55
Appendix 4. Equivalence between classifications systems .................................................................. 56
Appendix 5. Additional information for the well-being workshop and list of participants..... 61
Appendix 6. Support information for the priority scoring ................................................................... 73
Health .............................................................................................................................................................................. 73
Time use ......................................................................................................................................................................... 76
Knowledge and skills ................................................................................................................................................. 79
Social connections ...................................................................................................................................................... 82
Civic engagement and governance ..................................................................................................................... 85
Environmental quality ............................................................................................................................................... 90
Safety and security ..................................................................................................................................................... 96
Subjective well-being ................................................................................................................................................ 98
Cultural identity .........................................................................................................................................................101
Income and wealth ...................................................................................................................................................105
Jobs and earnings .....................................................................................................................................................111
Housing.........................................................................................................................................................................114
- v -
Executive Summary
Project and objective
This project is a partnership between Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research (MWLR) and
the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) and is supported through the Office of the Prime
Minister’s Chief Science Advisor and MWLR Strategic Science Investment Funding.
The aim of the project is to develop and test a structured, systematic, transparent, and
repeatable process that uses well-being to design indicators that better represent the link
between nature and people. The process involved:
• reviewing international and New Zealand literature on environmental and well-
being indicators,
• developing a structured process to identify relevant indicators that describe the
contribution of nature to people’s well-being using ecosystem services as the
conceptual basis,
• testing our process with stakeholders, and
• demonstrating its application to current government initiatives
Tracking the connection between nature and people’s well-being in New Zealand
• Two main initiatives in New Zealand assess state of the environment and people’s well-
being. First is the state of the environment (SOE) reporting series led by MfE and
Statistics New Zealand (StatsNZ). These environmental reports are based on a causal
chain framework, the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR). The focus in New
Zealand is on the Pressure-State-Impact for reporting. Second is the Living Standards
Framework (LSF) developed by the Treasury. The LSF is based on the OECD well-being
framework, to reflect people’s well-being or ‘capability of people to live lives that they
have reason to value’. The LSF is composed of several elements, including domains of
current well-being and four future well-being capitals (financial, human, natural, and
social). The Living Standards Dashboard comprises over 60 indicators to monitor
progress on social, economic, and environmental well-being for the LSF. Data for these
indicators will be supported by Statistics NZ’s Indicator Aotearoa NZ project.
• MfE and StatsNZ collate a range of Pressure, State, and Impact indicators. A review of
these indicators showed most data and indicators track ‘pressure’ and ‘state’ with little
information/few indicators available for tracking ‘impact’. Given impact indicators
connect how changes in the environment relates to people’s well-being, this is an
important gap in New Zealand’s knowledge and understanding of well-being. This
deficiency was highlighted by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment
who suggested additional data/indicators are needed for ‘drivers’ of change. We
suggest ecosystem services (ES: benefits that people receive from ecosystems) or
Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP: an alternative framing introduced by the
Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)) is an
appropriate framing for identifying indicators to track impacts.
- vi -
A proposed process to identify robust indicators that meaningfully connect well-
being to nature
• We developed a process based on ES/NCP concepts to identify those impact indicators
that can provide meaningful information on well-being for New Zealand. The process
allows for a robust discussion on what the relationship(s) is/are between different
ES/NCPs and dimensions of well-being, thus enabling us to identify ‘fit for purpose
indicators that also align with the LSF.
• Our co-production indicator process involved:
1 Framing. In this step, the overarching framing for the process is agreed. For our
purposes, we agreed to use the ES/NCP classification and the LSF well-being
framework. The LSF is being used by several central government agencies. The ES/NCP
categories used were provisioning or material ES/NCP (e.g. food or fibre), regulating
(e.g. regulation of climate, natural hazards or water), and cultural or non-material
ES/NCP (e.g. spiritual or recreation). These are commonly used in the literature.
2 Prioritisation. Not every ES/NCP is relevant to each well-being considered in the LSF. In
this step, we developed a series of criteria to help narrow down and prioritise which
ES/NCP-well-being relationship should be considered for indicator development. The
criteria we used included the nature of importance of the relationship (direct/indirect
and magnitude of relationship), the scale of its importance (proportion of population or
spatial extent) and the substitutability of the ES/NCP (i.e. whether there were cost-
effective man-made alternatives or similar/same options in close proximity).
3 Designing indicators. Impact indicators are complex and can represent various
elements of typically complex relationships between humans and nature. We propose
to split impact indicators into ‘supply’ and ‘benefit’ indicators. Supply indicators
represent the ecosystem’s capacity to provide the service (biophysical potential) and
the anthropogenic inputs necessary to realise the service (e.g. through accessibility and
added anthropogenic assets). Benefit indicators refer to the impact that people receive
for their well-being. It reflects the relevance of an ecosystem service to people,
highlighting the actual use and demand for an ES/NCP.
Testing our process
• We tested the process with central government agency stakeholders in a workshop
setting. This involved running two exercises to determine how well the process worked
with a diverse audience. The first exercise tested the prioritisation process using two
well-being domains (health and subjective well-being) and three ES/NCP. The second
exercise explored the identified of appropriate indicators to represent the relationships
between the well-beings and prioritised ES/NCP. Overall, participants generally agreed
on using an ES/NCP framing to describe the relationship between well-being nature.
The discussions, however, highlighted the variability in the prioritisation scoring
depending on the perspectives from different groups (e.g. Māori vs trampers vs city
dwellers).
• To populate the full ES/NCP well-being matrix, an assessment to derive the importance
of ES/NCP for each well-being and prioritise the relationship on which to focus
indicator development was undertaken by the MWLR authors. The authors
endeavoured to consider the range of potential stakeholder interests and perceptions
- vii -
during their assessment and drew from the literature where possible. The conclusions
from this assessment should be tested with a wider group of stakeholders to ensure a
range of perspectives were adequately captured. From our qualitative assessment, we
noted:
• Material (and non-material) ES/NCPs are essential for backbone economic activities
(e.g. material NCP from indigenous vegetation is the production of honey from
Manuka that has increased in export value since the beginning of the pandemic
(https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/42360-New-Zealand-honey-exports).
Material (and non-material) ES/NCPs are important for many of our economic
sectors such as tourism, agriculture and commodity exports, and the screen
industry.
• Regulating ES/NCPs are essential for our health and personal security – ensuring
clean air and water, healthy soils, and the decomposition of waste. They also
indirectly affect the material dimension of well-being by, for example, mitigating
erosion and flooding and thus reducing the costs of erosion and flood damage.
• Non-material ES/NCPs are essential for our mental health, cultural identity, and social
cohesion and will be important for community social resilience for COVID-19 recovery.
• ‘Maintenance of options’ is a longer term and fundamental NCP and includes ‘Nature’s
Contribution to Adaptation’. It reflects the value of maintaining and investing in natural
capital to keep options open for future generations, build resilience to future shocks
(e.g. financial crisis, future pandemics, natural disasters), as well as adaptation to
climate change.
Application and implementation pathway
This project has informed government decisions in the following areas:
• The rapid review of ES/NCP and how they underpin well-being helped shape
conversations on budgetary prioritisation for the MfE during the COVID-19 response.
Many in the public service were required to make rapid decisions on where and what to
invest in for recovery funding to stimulate the New Zealand economy. Given the speed
of these decisions there was the chance that both the impact on the environment and
opportunities to enhance nature would be overlooked. The high-level relationships
between ES/NCPs and well-being were used as a ‘checklist’ to assess the longer-term
impacts of these decisions.
• The indicators currently being tracked for Environmental Reporting tend to focus on
the ‘state’ of ecosystems or ecosystem services. Supply or benefit indicators were found
to be lacking. Only six indicators (out of 21 ES/NCP) had direct relevance to the supply
of ES/NCPs, with only five out of 18 ES/NCPs partially informed by the current set of
indicators in terms of ‘benefits.’ In general, there was good information available to
cover the provisioning services but comparatively little information for the regulating
and cultural services.
• The environmental reporting programme at MfE has been exploring how to expand the
set of core measures to demonstrate the connection between Pressure-State-Impact
indicators and well-being using an ES-based approach. These new data would enable a
narrative to emerge that not only links pressures from human and natural factors to the
state of the natural capital ‘stocks’, but also links changes in these stocks to changes in
- viii -
the benefits provided to people. To develop a robust set of additional indicators should
involve a participatory approach with relevant stakeholders to foster ownership and
continued use of the indicators. Stakeholder participation can help to determine the
intended use of the indicators.
Future development of the process to link nature to well-being
Sustainable long-term funding was highlighted as a key risk for the on-going collection of
ES/NCP indicators for well-being. A business case that highlights the value of such an
indicator set and outlines a host organisation for their collection would be beneficial. The
initiatives by Statistics NZ on SEEA or IANZ could be broadened to include the indicators
identified during the process.
We identified three areas for future development (based on our discussions with workshop
participants, the Treasury and MfE):
• The matrix of relevance of ES/NCP to well-being domains should be cross validated by
a wider group of stakeholders/agencies. This would ensure buy-in and recognition of
the value of this process.
• Further work should discuss complementarity with Māori well-being frameworks.
Identifying common indicators would help consolidate and prioritise the data needed
to measure and track well-being. A co-development process for identifying and/or
integrating Māori values into the process would add value to process and resulting
indicator set.
• The process for designing indicators of supply and benefit to people needs further
development and consider factors such as diversity of the community, accessibility to
an ES/NCP for well-being, and equity. Specific case studies (e.g. policy evaluation,
monitoring, or reporting) could be used to further refine and test the revised indicator
component of the process.
- 1 -
1 Introduction and context
We have a fundamental relationship with the environment: we both influence it and are
influenced by it. We influence it through how we manage and use the
environment, causing ‘pressures’ on and changes in the ‘state’ of the environment.
The other domain of our relationship with the environment is how it influences us. We
depend on the environment and the benefits the environment provides us. Examples of
these benefits include food, energy, health, recreation, and identity (which acknowledges
the deeper connection we have with the environment).
Given how deeply intertwined people and the environment are it is important that
environmental stewardship and related management decisions include consideration of our
place within the environment. MfE is the government agency with responsibility for
environmental stewardship, including providing national direction (through instruments
such as National Policy Statements) for the wise use of land, water, climate, and seas. MfE
also has a legal responsibility to report on the State of New Zealand’s Environment (since
the enactment of the Environmental Reporting Act in 2015) and under international
agreements such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC). Other obligations include the ratification of the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) that has led to the New Zealand National Biodiversity Strategy and Action
Plan led by the Department of Conservation (Te Mana o te Taiao) and the Sustainable
Development Goals set up by the United Nations in 2015.
The completion of the first full cycle of the environmental reporting series in April 2019
provided a timely opportunity to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment
(PCE) to review the entire system. The Commissioner noted several issues and proposed
improvements to the Environmental Reporting Act. Gaps in data and knowledge undermine
stewardship of New Zealand environment and evidence-based decision making. One the
most crucial gaps is the link between changes in the environment and the impact on
people’s well-being. These dependencies and benefits are often described as ‘ecosystem
services’, as popularised by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005). This is an
active area of research at the science to policy interface, particularly through international
frameworks such as the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
(IPBES) and the European Union Biodiversity Strategy. In New Zealand, research on the
linkage between environment and people has included reviews on ecosystem services
(Dymond 2013; Dymond & Ausseil 2019), and research on the relevance of ecosystem
services to the farming community, businesses and local government authorities through
the BEST programme (https://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/science/portfolios/enhancing-
policy-effectiveness/best).
2 Project scope
This project is a partnership between Manaaki Whenua and MfE supported through the
Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, established to build capability and
understanding at the science to policy interface.
- 2 -
The specific focus of the project is to develop and test a structured, systematic, transparent,
and repeatable approach to represent the links between nature and people. The approach
includes the following elements (Fig. 1):
• Explore the Treasury’s Living Standard Framework and state of the Environment
reporting framework from MfE (section 3)
• Review key international initiatives and frameworks used to link nature to people
(section 4)
• Explore the concept of ecosystem services/Nature’s Contributions to People
(section 5)
• Frame a systematic and structured process to formalise the contribution of nature
to people’s well-being (section 6)
• Testing the process with stakeholders and within the research team (section 7)
• And finally test application within a policy context (section 8)
Figure 1. Guiding roadmap for this report.
3 Background: the NZ context
3.1 Treasury’s well-being priorities
The Treasury developed the Living Standards Framework (LSF) to help inform economic
policy advice to government. It is based on the OECD well-being framework and reflects
people’s well-being or the ‘capability of people to live lives that they have reason to value’
(Treasury 2019). The LSF is composed of several elements (Fig. 2):
• Domains of current well-being to reflect the range of outcomes that matter to New
Zealander’s well-being. These are primarily based on the OECD better life index, with
the addition of a ‘cultural identity’ domain.
• Four capitals for future well-being (social, built, human and natural capital) which are
important to sustain for future generations
- 3 -
• Risk and resilience to reflect the capacity to sustain well-being through unexpected
events
• Distribution that reflects how well-being varies across space, time/generations, and
population groups.
The well-being budget 2019 (Treasury 2019) has six priority areas, including transforming
the economy to a sustainable and low-emissions economy. With the recent COVID19 crisis,
the well-being budget 2020 has focused on rebuilding the economy for post-COVID19
recovery. It has, among other initiatives, established a new fund, ‘jobs for Nature’, to boost
predator control efforts, restore wetlands, regenerate planting, and improve tracks, huts,
and other recreational and visitor assets on public conservation land
(https://www.doc.govt.nz/news/media-releases/2020-media-releases/investment-to-create-
11000-environment-jobs-in-our-regions/).
Figure 2. The Living Standards Framework.
The LSF Dashboard is a measurement tool to inform Treasury advice to Ministers on
priorities to improve well-being. Indicators Aotearoa New Zealand (IANZ)1 is seen as the
basis for populating the Living Standards Framework dashboard in the future. It is delivered
1 https://www.stats.govt.nz/indicators-and-snapshots/indicators-aotearoa-new-zealand-nga-tutohu-aotearoa/
- 4 -
by StatsNZ and is meant to support many cross-government initiatives, including the LSF
but also the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.
A set of indicators were identified to monitor progress against each of the current well-
being domains (Appendix 1). The Treasury had a limited set of indicators (eleven), related to
‘environment quality’ (current well-being) or natural capital (future well-being) (Table 1).
These indicators have been chosen in a pragmatic way (Treasury 2019), based on an initial
review of available information (van Zyl & Au 2018).
Table 1. Environmental quality (current well-being) and Natural capital (future well-being)
indicators used in the Living Standards Dashboard (Treasury 2019)
Category Indicator Statistic Data source
Current
well-being –
Environment
Air quality
(PM10)
National annual average PM10
concentration
Population-weighted exposure to PM2.5
concentrations, micrograms per cubic
metre, 3-year moving average
(international statistic)
StatsNZ
Access to the
natural
environment
Percentage of adults who said they could
easily get to all or most of the green spaces
in their local area
New Zealand General
Social Survey (StatsNZ)
Water quality
(swimmability)
Percentage of tested river sites that are safe
to swim in under normal conditions MfE
Perceived
environmental
quality
Percentage of people who rated the overall
state of the natural environment in New
Zealand as good or very good
Public perception of New
Zealand’s environment,
Lincoln University survey
Future
well-being –
natural
capital
Net greenhouse
gas emission
Net greenhouse gas emissions in
kilotonnes of CO2 equivalent
New Zealand’s greenhouse
gas inventory (MfE)
NZ’s renewable
energy
Renewable energy as a percentage of total
primary energy supply StatsNZ and MBIE
Climate
regulation Carbon stored in forest and soil biomass
New Zealand’s greenhouse
gas inventory (MfE)
Sustainable food
production
Percentage of tested sites within targets for
at least six of the seven types of soil test MfE
Drinking water Proportion of the population served with
drinking water that met all standards
Annual Report on
Drinking-water Quality,
Ministry of Health
Biodiversity and
genetic resources
Percentage of indigenous species at
risk/threatened among assessed species
Department of
Conservation
Waste
management Kilograms of waste, per capita
Review of the effectiveness
of the waste disposal levy,
MfE
- 5 -
3.2 Environmental reporting
The National Environmental Reporting Act was passed into law in 2015 (MfE 2014), setting
up an obligation for New Zealand to report on the state of its environment (SOE) on a
regular basis. At present, MfE and StatsNZ are required to produce a synthesis report on the
state of New Zealand’s environment once every 3 years, with rolling domain reports for air,
land, freshwater, marine and climate produced on a six-monthly basis. These reports are
based on the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response framework. Drivers (D) are the
phenomena that provide context for changing pressures (economics, population growth…),
pressures (P) are the direct natural or human influences that can explain changes in the
state, state (S) is the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the environment
and how these change over time, impacts (I) are the consequences of changes in the state
of the environment and responses (R) are the actions taken by institutions, government,
and communities. Responses loops back to the drivers and pressure and provides a closed
system. The DPSIR is the basis for New Zealand’s state of the environment reporting series,
however, it only focuses on PSI, with Response and Drivers being considered out of scope
(Fig. 3).
Figure 3. Pressure-state-impact framework from Our land 2018 (MfE and StatsNZ 2018).
Indicators for pressure, state and impacts have been designed for all five domains (Table 2).
These indicators fall into the topics defined by the Environmental Reporting Regulations
2016 (MfE and StatsNZ 2016). These topics ensure which key issues should be reported
within each domain. State topics describe the broad aspects of the condition of the domain,
pressure topics describe the main sources of pressure and impact topics cover the impacts
in the areas of ecological integrity, public health, the economy, te ao Māori, and culture and
recreation.
- 6 -
Table 2. Number of current MfE Environmental Reporting indicators aligned by domains2
Domain Pressure State Impact Total
Air 0 9 2 11
Freshwater 5 15 1 21
Land 11 16 2 29
Marine 15 15 1 31
Atmosphere and climate 7 11 3 21
3.3 Exploring how some government initiatives link people to nature
Besides the SOE Reporting series and the LSF, we also reviewed several initiatives in New
Zealand and internationally (Table 3) to explore how they interact and where there are
common goals.
Table 3. Main initiatives reviewed in this report
Initiative Purpose Scale Audience
Resource Management
Act (RMA) (MfE),
National Policy
Statement (NPS) (MfE)
Promote the sustainable management of
natural and physical resources
National
to local
Natural resource
managers (farmers,
local governments)
NZ Environmental
reporting (MfE)
Provide evidence base to know what
impact we are having on the environment
National Public, policy
makers, businesses
Living Standards
framework (LSF)
(Treasury)
Strengthen the robustness and rigour of
Treasury’s advice about lifting living
standards, beyond a healthy economy
National Policy makers
Indicators Aotearoa NZ
(IANZ) (StatsNZ)
Provide statistically robust data for other
initiatives (SOE, Living standards)
National Central
government,
general public
System of Environmental
Economic Accounting
(SEEA) (StatsNZ)
Provide a statistical system to measure
condition of the environment and
contribution of the environment to the
economy, and impact of the economy on
the environment
National Policy makers,
central government
Aotearoa circle Pursue sustainable prosperity and reverse
the decline of New Zealand’s natural
resources through partnership of public
and private sector leaders
Industry Businesses
NZ Planetary Boundaries
(MfE)
Raise awareness on NZ’s contribution to
global issues
Global to
national
General public,
policy makers
2 NB: Some of MfE indicators can be counted twice, as an impact indicator and state indicator in another
domain.
- 7 -
Initiative Purpose Scale Audience
Intergovernmental
Platform on Biodiversity
& Ecosystem Services
(IPBES) (UN)
Provide evidence base to know what
impact we are having on the environment
and how it affects human well-being
Global Policy makers
Sustainable Development
Goals (SDG) (UN)
Provide a blueprint to achieve a better and
more sustainable future, addressing global
challenges (poverty, inequality,
environmental degradation, prosperity,
peace, and justice)
Global and
industry
Policy makers,
businesses
Using the DPSIR framework, the focus area for these initiatives can be mapped into broad
objectives (Fig. 4):
• Understanding the environment
Planetary boundaries is a concept to describe earth system processes and their
environmental boundaries (Rockström et al. 2009). The concept was developed to
demonstrate how human society is putting pressure on the environment. MfE has reviewed
the framework and piloted downscaling of the global boundaries to New Zealand. The New
Zealand Planetary Boundary goal is to communicate to the public New Zealand’s
contribution to the planetary boundaries. This framework was applied in several countries
and showed a way to identify large overshoots over 5–10-year periods (Dao et al. 2018).
This approach has some limitations as it only refers to global issues that may not be
representative of NZ-related issues and relies on many approximations to downscale to
country level (Häyhä et al. 2016).
As stated previously, New Zealand’s State of the Environment reporting focuses on
understanding and reporting on pressure, state, and impact for the environment. The
reporting programme has purposefully refrained from including ‘response’.
• Collecting data initiatives
To support central government agencies in their decisions, StatsNZ leads two data and
information initiatives:
• Indicators Aotearoa NZ (IANZ) is designed to provide key indicators for He Arotahi
Tatauranga, the Living Standards Framework, and the UN Sustainable Development
Goals. Some of the indicators are drawn from the Environment Aotearoa state of the
environment reports. These indicators sit across the PSI spectrum and different
domains of human well-being.
• The System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) is still in an experimental
phase in NZ. The SEEA covers water, minerals, marine, forestry, fish, environmental
protection expenditure and energy
(http://archive.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/environment/environmental-
economic-accounts.aspx). This accounting system is consistent with the System of
National Accounting (SNA) and allows for the integration of economic and
environmental data.
- 8 -
Reporting to international conventions
New Zealand has an obligation to report on several international frameworks, including the
Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD; state of biodiversity) and the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC; greenhouse gas emissions). The CBD
has also set biodiversity targets (Aichi Targets). Reporting against these targets provides
information on how well each country is progressing in halting biodiversity loss.
The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs;
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300), another United Nations initiative,
has 17 goals. The SDGs bring together the three dimensions of sustainable development –
economic, social, and environmental – and therefore sits across the DPSIR framework
(Chandrakumar & McLaren 2018) (Fig. 4).
Setting National policy directions
Several legislative and regulatory requirements in New Zealand address environmental
change (i.e. ‘response’ in the DPSIR). These include, at national scale, the Resource
Management Act (RMA; 1991) and subsequent National Policy Statements (NPS). The RMA
and NPS set the national environmental management directions for local and territorial
authorities. Regional councils and territorial authorities are then obliged to give effect to
the NPS through their regional policy statements, regional plans, and district plans.
Figure 4. Linkages between key NZ and international initiatives.
- 9 -
4 International initiatives tracking links between people and nature
As the link between people and nature is complex and multi-dimensional, many frameworks
have been developed to represent these linkages (Naeem et al. 2016) (Fig. 5). A common
approach is to represent these linkages using a causal chain such as the DPSIR framework
(Fig. 5a), as used by MfE. A major milestone in the representation of the fundamental
relationship between nature and human well-being was the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). The MEA helped refine and
disseminate the concept of ‘ecosystem services’ (ES) (Figs 5b and 6). Ecosystem services
(ES) are defined as the ‘benefits people obtain from ecosystems”’ and derived from
natural capital (i.e. living and non-living resources).
Since then, numerous initiatives and researchers have expanded or refined this concept.
Potschin and Haines-Young (2011) in particular have been instrumental, and have clarified
the ES concept through the cascade model (Fig. 5c) that was used as a basis for
implementing the EU biodiversity framework (Fig. 5f). In this cascade, biodiversity plays a
key role in maintaining basic processes and supporting ecosystem function. ES are derived
from ecosystem functions and represent the realised flow of services for which there is
demand. Human well-being is then defined via benefits and values obtained from the
services supplied. It links more specifically the two main systems: socio-economic and
ecosystems via the flow of ecosystem services and drivers of change.
The Safe Planetary Boundaries framework has also gained worldwide attention and takes a
different approach. Implicitly, human well-being is at the heart of the circle, with threats to
biodiversity and human society being defined through nine broad dimensions (including
biodiversity) that are conceptualising the loss of integrity for planetary processes
(Rockström et al. 2009) (Fig. 5d).
In 2012, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) was
established at the request of governments, and currently has 137 member countries. It was
instituted in response to the success of the MEA to strengthen the science-policy interface
for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, long-term human well-being, and
sustainable development. The objectives of IPBES are to provide regular assessments,
support policy formulation and build capacity. The first task of IPBES was to design a
conceptual framework that would be broad enough to encompass different worldviews and
concepts of nature-people systems. The resulting conceptual framework brings together
elements of the DPSIR and the MEA framework (Fig. 5e, Appendix 2) (IPBES 2019). IPBES
moved from the terminology of ecosystem services and referred to ‘nature’s contributions
to people’ (NCP) (Appendix 2). Nature’s Contributions to People are defined as all the
contributions, both positive and negative, of living nature (diversity of organisms,
ecosystems, and their associated ecological and evolutionary processes) to people’s
quality of life. It was introduced to be more flexible around the concept of ‘ecosystem
services’, which did not always resonate with other worldviews from indigenous
communities around the globe and reflected primarily utilitarian valuation of nature (Díaz et
al. 2018). IPBES has produced several assessments including the global assessment on
biodiversity (IPBES 2019), and four regional assessments for Europe and Central Asia, Africa,
the Americas, and Asia and the Pacific with relevance to New Zealand (IPBES 2018). These
global and regional assessments provide both an update on current state and trends from
the 2005 MEA effort, and a translation of science evidence connected to global targets
(Convention of Biological Diversity, Sustainable Development Goals).
- 10 -
Figure 5. Comparison of different conceptual frameworks (modified from (Naeem et al. 2016): a) DPSIR; b) MEA; c) the ES cascade (Potschin & Haines-
Young 2011); d) Planetary boundaries (Rockstrom et al. 2009); e) IPBES (Diaz et al. 2015); f) EU biodiversity framework (Maes et al. 2013).
11
5 Exploring the ecosystem services concept for well-being indicators
5.1 Terminology used
The multitude of frameworks (Fig. 5) has led to some confusion in terminology, and
debates are still active (La Notte et al. 2017). Different terms can be used by different
frameworks for a same/similar concept (e.g. Table 4). These frameworks, while developed
for different purposes, highlight the challenges facing practitioners who wish to
implement these concepts in natural resource management policy and decisions. A wide
range of terminology could hinder the utility of these frameworks and may detract from
the value of these approaches to help decision-making.
Many conceptual frameworks from Figure 5 rely, to some extent, on causal chains but use
different terms and separate the steps in the chain at different points. For instance, the EU
biodiversity strategy defines pressure similarly to the DPSIR ‘pressure’ and characterises
‘state’ of ecosystems as having a ‘condition”’ and ‘extent’ accounts. The condition and
extent terminology is consistent with the Systems of Environmental- Economics
Accounting Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EEA), which is being developed by
the United Nations Statistical Commission for natural capital accounting (Maes et al. 2018).
IPBES has a similar causal chain framework, although drivers and pressures from the DPSIR
are defined as indirect drivers (e.g. demographics, economic, governance) and direct
drivers of biodiversity change. Direct drivers include climate change, nature over-
exploitation, pollution, invasive alien species, and land use change. IPBES also introduces
the notion of substitution, where, for instance, food produced within an ecosystem could
be replaced by highly engineered substitutes such as cultured meat or hydroponics.
Another important contribution of the IPBES framework is introducing the notion of co-
production, symbolised by the arrow connecting the contribution of anthropogenic
capitals and associated institutions to processes of value creation from nature. This is an
important (and still ongoing) innovation as compared to other policy frameworks.
- 12 -
Table 4. Comparison of terminology between 3 frameworks
DPSIR and NZ Environmental
Reporting framework
(MfE 2014)
Inter-governmental Platform on
Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services
(Díaz et al. 2018)
EU Biodiversity framework
(Maes et al. 2013)
Driver [excluded from the State
of the Environment reporting in
New Zealand]
Indirect driver (population, economy,
governance, Science and Technology)
Driver
Pressure Direct driver (climate change, over-
exploitation, invasive alien species,
pollution, land-use change)
Pressure
State Nature or Natural Capital • Extent account
• Condition account
• Capacity account
Impact • Potential and realised NCP • ES supply
Changes in Good quality of life:
• Output
• Impact on human well-being
Changes in human well-being:
• ES demand or benefit
• Value
Response [excluded from the
State of the Environment
reporting in New Zealand]
• Institutions and indirect drivers
• Anthropogenic assets
Response
For the purposes of this report and to demonstrate an application of a proposed process
identify appropriate indicators that reflect the importance of natural capital to human
well-being, we use:
• Well-being – Living Standards Framework well-being domains (Treasury 2019) that is
based on the OECD well-being framework.
• Natural capital/nature/biodiversity –Throughout the report ‘nature’ encompasses
biodiversity, environment, and natural capital. Natural capital refers to the living and
non-living stocks of natural resources, which include plants, animals, soils, air, water,
and minerals that form ecosystems that generate ecosystem services. Since
biodiversity encompasses ‘the variability among living organisms from all sources
including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the
ecological complexes of which they are a part; this includes diversity within species,
between species and of ecosystems’. We consider biodiversity as the variety from
genes, species to ecosystems. Biodiversity underpins ecosystem functions and the
provision of ecosystem services and can therefore be considered synonymous to
‘natural capital’ or ‘nature’.
• Ecosystem services or Nature’s Contributions to People (ES/NCP) are the flows derived
from natural capital. ES/NCP – We refer to ES/NCP synonymously when talking about
the contributions people obtain (positively or negatively) from ecosystems, which is
consistent with the MEA definition but also aligns with definitions used in other
frameworks (e.g. IPBES).
- 13 -
5.2 A review of environmental indicators in New Zealand
The terminology of pressure, state, supply, benefit indicators was compared with the
indicators used in some key reporting frameworks used in New Zealand. We categorised
the LSF indicators relevant to natural capital according to the PSI definitions (Table 15 in
Appendix 1) and found that most were related to state and impact (Table 5). The Treasury
has based these indicators on currently available data and is thus aware that they do not
provide a full picture of the value of natural capital and its changes over time (van Zyl &
Au 2018).
MfE has the largest database of environmental indicators in New Zealand. Most are
related to state and pressure, with very few related to impact. Note that in our analysis,
some indicators could be counted twice, as an impact in one domain (e.g. impact of state
of atmosphere on ocean acidification) could also be a state in another domain (e.g. marine
state of acidification). IANZ had mainly state indicators, most of which came from the
State of the Environment reporting. The supply indicators had some placeholder indicators
such as ‘regulating services’ or ‘provisioning services’ indicators that have no data.
Table 5. Summary of number of indicators in the PSIR framework for the main sources of
information in NZ
Indicator
Initiative Driver Pressure State Impact Response
IANZ (Stats NZ) 0 4 25 10 1
Environmental Reporting (MfE/StatsNZ) 0 37 66 9 0
Living Standards Framework (Treasury) 0 1 4 5 2
Waikato Well-being project (Regional Council) 0 0 6 1 0
Auckland Plan 2050 0 2 10 0 3
Environmental health indicator NZ 0 0 0 6 0
5.3 Linking natural capital to well-being in the LSF
The review of indicators from a number of initiatives in NZ shows there is a clear gap in
indicators focusing on the impact side of the PSIR, thus reflecting the lack of knowledge
and data on connections between people and nature. The concept of ES/NCP introduced
in Section 4 could help fill this gap, by providing a structured framework on how to
describe linkages between nature and people. Since the LSF refers to ‘natural capital’ and
‘well-being’, we can then describe the links between future and current well-being through
the flow of ES/NCP (Fig. 6):
• The LSF well-being domains can be classified into six broad categories, five from the
MEA well-being elements (freedom of choice, security, health, material, and social
relations) and one on environmental quality.
• ES are usually classified into three broad categories: provisioning services (e.g. food,
fibre); regulating (e.g. regulation of climate, water, air); and cultural services (e.g.
- 14 -
inspiration, recreation, learning). IPBES has used a similar classification for its NCP,
although the broad categories are defined as material, non-material and regulating.
Non-material NCP largely include cultural ES, but it is acknowledged that culture
permeates across all three categories as part of co-production and value development
(Diaz et al. 2018). The other innovation is NCP18 ‘Maintenance of options’, which is an
additional categorisation, although partly related to the provisioning ‘Genetic
resources’ of the MEA. This NCP reflects a longer term and fundamental contribution
of nature and people through ecological resilience and transformability (e.g. through
evolutionary processes, dispersal and reconfiguration) and could include the recent
concept of ‘Nature’s Contribution to Adaptation’ (Colloff et al. 2020). It reflects the
value of maintaining and investing in natural capital to support the choice of future
generations and build resilience to future shocks (financial crisis or future pandemics),
as well as adaptation to climate change.
Figure 6. Conceptual framework linking natural and anthropogenic capitals, ES/NCP and LSF
well-being elements.
- 15 -
6 A proposed process with stakeholders to prioritise indicators
A process was developed to provide a systematic, structured, transparent, and repeatable
approach to identify meaningful indicators to use that capture the contribution of natural
capital (via ecosystem services) to well-being and enable the tracking of well-being over
time. This approach is meant to facilitate discussions between scientists and a variety of
stakeholders interested in this topic. This participatory and co-produced process should
ensure the results meet the needs from stakeholders and are usable for their purposes.
The process to identify natural capital/ecosystem service indicators for well-being involves
(Fig. 7):
1 Framing: Framing the well-being and natural capital/ecosystem service concepts to
underpin indicator choice.
2 Prioritising: Assessing if (and how) different ES/NCP impact on each domain of well-
being and if (and how) each domain of well-being depends on the different
ecosystem services. This step can be used to do a rapid assessment to identify which
ecosystem services are relevant to consider for each domain of well-being.
3 Identifying indicators: Designing fit-for-purpose and meaningful indicators that reflect
how an ecosystem service supply and benefit to the different domains of well-being.
Some of the indicators may be appropriate for multiple domains of well-being.
Figure 7. Proposed process to design ES/NCP indicators.
- 16 -
6.1 Framing
In this step, both the ES/NCP classification and well-being classification need to be agreed
upon. It is important to choose a classification system for both ES/NCP and well-being to
ensure terminology is well understood, and all aspects of both well-being and ES/NCP are
well covered. The process we outline could utilise any well-being framework or ES/NCP
classification (e.g. MEA or IPBES 2019); it is not dependent on the frameworks and
classifications used to demonstrate the application of the process.
6.1.1 Well-being framework
Although many well-being frameworks exist, a review was beyond the scope of this report.
Te Puni Kōkiri and the Treasury (2019) and Roberts et al. (2015) provide some useful
insights to other ways of framing well-being. In our case, we used the Treasury’s well-
being domains from the LSF to retain consistency with the New Zealand government’s
current well-being focus. The LSF well-being domains are based on the OECD well-being
framework and adapted for the New Zealand context (Fig. 2). Definitions of each well-
being are described in Table 6.
Table 6. Well-being framework and definitions used by the Treasury (Treasury 2019)
Domains of well-being Definition
Quality of life well-beings
Health status Our mental and physical health
Time use3 The quality and quantity of people’s leisure and recreation time (that is,
people’s free time where they are not working or doing chores)
Knowledge and skills4 People’s knowledge and skills
Social connections Having positive social contacts and a support network
Civic engagement and
governance
People’s engagement in the governance of their country and their civic
responsibilities, how ‘good’ New Zealand’s governance is perceived to be, and
the procedural fairness of society
Environmental quality The natural and physical environment and how it impacts people today
Safety and security People’s safety and security (both real and perceived) and their freedom from
risk of harm and lack of fear
Subjective
well-being Overall life satisfaction and sense of meaning and self
Cultural identity5 Having a strong sense of identity, belonging, and ability to be oneself, and the
existence value of cultural taonga
3 Work-life balance in the OECD better life
4 Education and skills in the OECD better life framework
5 Not present in the OECD better life framework.
- 17 -
Material conditions
Income and
consumption6
People’s disposable income from all sources, how much people spend and the
material possessions they have
Jobs and earnings
The quality of people’s jobs (including monetary compensation) and work
environment, people’s ease and inclusiveness of finding suitable employment,
and their job stability and freedom from unemployment
Housing The quality, suitability, and affordability of the homes we live in
6.1.2 ES/NCP framework
There are several options that have been developed internationally for ES/NCP
classifications, including the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, the IPBES and the
Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) developed for natural
capital accounting purposes. All three classification systems have some level of
corresponding categories (Appendix 4) although the CICES is the most detailed one.
Our process is demonstrated using the MEA classification for provisioning, regulating and
cultural services (Table 7), with the addition of one supporting service (creation and
maintenance of habitat) to ensure equivalence with the IPBES classification. Results can be
shown using the IPBES terminology from the equivalence table in Appendix 4.
Table 7. Ecosystem services classification used in this report, modified from the MEA (2005)
and IPBES (2019)
Service (Sub-category) Definition Examples
REGULATING SERVICES – the benefits obtained from an ecosystem’s control of natural processes
Erosion control Role plants play in soil retention
Trees/forest on hills and mountains
reduce mass-movement erosion
Plants on dry-lands and agricultural
lands reduce surface erosion
Natural hazard
regulation
(Storm
protection)
Degree to which ecosystems reduce damage caused
by natural hazards
Mangrove protection against tidal
surges
Riparian margins and green buffer areas
protect against river floods
Coastal dunes protect against coastal
storms (erosion and flooding)
Water regulation
(timing and
volume of water
flows)
Influence ecosystems have on the timing and
magnitude of water runoff, flooding, and aquifer
recharge (particularly in terms of the water storage
potential of the ecosystem or landscape)
Permeable soils facilitate aquifer
recharge
River floodplains, lakes, wetlands, and
forests have water storage capacity that
ameliorate flood peaks and low water
levels
6 Income and wealth in the OECD framework
- 18 -
Service (Sub-category) Definition Examples
Air quality
regulation
Influence ecosystems have on air quality by either
emitting chemicals to the atmosphere (reducing air
quality) or extracting chemicals from the atmosphere
(increasing air quality)
Weather, geography and vegetation all
influence air quality (e.g. vegetation can
help filter air pollution in urban areas)
Forest fires emit pollutants
Climate
regulation
Local and regional
Influence ecosystems have on
local and regional
temperature, rain, winter, frost
frequency, and other climate
factors
Influence of vegetation on temperature
in urban areas
Influence of vegetation on regional and
local precipitation, wind, temperature,
and frost frequency
Global
Influence ecosystems have on
the global climate by emitting
greenhouse gases or aerosols
to the atmosphere, or by
absorbing greenhouse gases
or aerosols from the
atmosphere
Livestock greenhouse gas emissions
(methane)
Nitrous oxide emissions from pastoral
systems
Soil capture of and storage (soil carbon)
of carbon dioxide and methane
Forest and marine ecosystems
(seaweeds, kelp…) capture and storage
of carbon dioxide
Pollination Role ecosystems play in transferring pollen between
male and female plants
Managed bees are used to pollinate
fruits and crops
Many wild native pollinators (bees,
beetles, flies, butterflies, moths, bats,
birds, etc.) pollinate crops and native
species
Water
purification &
waste treatment
Role ecosystems play in filtering nutrients, heavy
metals, and pollutants in water
Role ecosystems play in decomposing organic
wastes and recycling them (taking up and
detoxifying compounds through soil and subsoil
processes)
Soils absorb phosphorous and heavy
metals, assimilate nitrogen, and
deactivate and decompose endocrine
disruptors
Wetlands remove pollutants from water
by trapping metals and organic materials
Soils degrade organic waste such as
animal dung and urine
Biological
control
Influence ecosystems have on the amount of crop
and livestock pests and diseases
Bio control agents and pathogens limit the need for
chemical interventions
Pest predators in natural ecosystems
enhance pest control on nearby farms.
For example, lady bugs prey on aphids
Disease
regulation
Influence that ecosystems have on the incidence and
abundance of human pathogens
Bio control agents and pathogens limit the need for
chemical interventions.
Plants, animals and soils can prevent
agricultural runoff (e.g. dung beetles),
minimise spread of cattle-borne diseases
such as campylobacter, salmonella,
cryptospirosis, and E. coli, etc.
Undisturbed vegetation can minimise
the abundance of disease carrying
insects abundance (e.g. mosquitos and
ticks carrying Ross river virus, dengue
fever, etc.) by minimising breeding sites
- 19 -
Service (Sub-category) Definition Examples
CULTURAL SERVICES – the non-material benefits people obtain from ecosystem services
Recreation and
ecotourism
Recreation undertaken in nature, including tourism
sector business and tourist activities that rely on
natural or managed ecosystems
Walking, tramping, hunting, biking,
kayaking, camping, touring, fishing,
surfing, boating etc.
Ethical and
spiritual values
Aesthetic, spiritual, religious, cultural heritage values,
social relations, sense of place, cultural diversity that
people attach to ecosystems, landscapes or species
Sense of belonging by those people who
associate themselves with a place, a
landscape, or a natural feature (river,
mountain)
Spiritual connection, creative art and
fulfilment derived from sacred lands and
rivers
Inspirational &
education values
Information people get from ecosystems that are
used for intellectual development, culture, art,
design, and innovation. Includes inspiration,
education, and knowledge systems
The structure of tree leaves has inspired
technological improvements in solar
power cells
School field trips to nature reserves help
teach scientific and research skills
PROVISIONING SERVICES – the goods or products obtained from ecosystems
Food
Crops Cultivated plants for use by
people or animals
Vegetables, fruits, grains
Livestock
Animals raised for domestic or
commercial consumption or
use
Dairy cattle, beef cattle, sheep deer, pigs,
chickens
Capture fisheries
Wild fish captured through
trawling and other non-
farming methods
Hoki, Mackerel, Oreo, Snapper
Aquaculture
Fish, shellfish, and/or plants
that are bred and reared in
ponds, enclosures
Green lipped mussels, Pacific Oysters,
King Salmon
Fibre
Timber and wood
Products made from trees
harvested from forest
ecosystems, plantations, or
non-forested lands
Wood/logs, wood pulp, paper
Other fibres
Non-wood and non-fuel-
based fibres sourced from the
environment
Wool, possum, alpaca, harakeke flax,
leather, hemp
Freshwater
Inland bodies of water, groundwater, rainwater, and
surface waters for household, industrial, and
agricultural uses
Freshwater for drinking, cleaning,
cooking, cooling, industrial processes,
stock water, electricity production, or
mode of transport
Fuel/energy Sources of fuel derived from plants and animals
Wood (various)
Biofuel production (e.g. tallow and used
vegetable oils)
Wild foods Plant and animal food sources gathered or caught in
the wild
Seafood (fish, whitebait, crayfish,
shellfish), freshwater fish (trout, eels),
deer, goat, pig, game birds, rabbits, tahr,
water cress, indigenous plants
Ornamental
Resources Products from nature that serve aesthetic purposes
Wood and stone used for carving
Traditional Māori use of wood for
production (e.g. Kauri for building
canoes, weapons, etc.)
- 20 -
Service (Sub-category) Definition Examples
Biochemicals,
natural
medicines, and
pharmaceuticals
Medicines, biocides, food additives, and other
biological materials derived from ecosystems for
commercial or domestic use
Fertiliser production; natural medicines
(hemp seed oil, colostrum, enzogenol,
deer velvet, etc.) and Rongoa – Māori
medicinal use of plants (e.g. karaka,
kawakawa, harakeke)
Genetic
resources
Genes and genetic information used for animal
breeding, plant improvement, and biotechnology
All animal and plant species and their
diversity, represent the genetic resources
of New Zealand (e.g. potential for marine
species to be developed for medicine)
Introduced plant species have been bred
to develop new horticultural crops
Biochemicals,
natural
medicines, and
pharmaceuticals
Medicines, biocides, food additives, and other
biological materials derived from ecosystems for
commercial or domestic use
Fertiliser production; natural medicines
(hemp seed oil, colostrum, enzogenol,
deer velvet, etc.) and Rongoa – Māori
medicinal use of plants (e.g. karaka,
kawakawa, harakeke)
Habitat creation
(IPBES NCP1)
and maintenance
of options (IPBES
NCP18)
The formation and continued production, by
ecosystems, of ecological conditions necessary or
favourable for living beings important to humans
Capacity of ecosystems, habitats, species or
genotypes to keep human options open in order to
support a later good quality of life
Extent of suitable habitat, biodiversity
intactness
6.2 Prioritising ecosystem services or NCP
We separated the questions into two basic elements:
• what is the nature and extent of impact an ES/NCP has on well-being, depending on
the diverse group of people?
• how substitutable is an ES/NCP contribution to each domain of well-being?
We found that these questions were important considerations as they reflect whether and
how an ecosystem may deliver benefits to people and the value of these benefits.
Substitutability for instance, is a key element that has already been suggested by several
authors as influencing or mediating the importance of ES/NCP to well-being (Garibaldi et
al. 2019; Mandle et al. 2020). Vulnerability to change is another element that needs to be
consider and requires to think about different groups in the community.
The following questions were used to guide the discussion on how people think about
prioritising ecosystem services:
• For impact (nature and extent) of an ecosystem service:
• Does the [ES/NCP] impact on people’s (depending on community of people e.g.
city dwellers, farmers, etc.) [well-being domain] directly or indirectly and what is
the size of that impact (small/large)?
• What is the extent of that impact or how many people are vulnerable to changes
(based on number of regions or population)?
- 21 -
• For the substitutability of an ecosystem service:
• Is there a substitute for the [ES/NCP] that is important for the [well-being
domain]?
• If yes, is it a cost-effective substitute or a similar alternative option?
A scoring system (Table 8) was developed to facilitate the ranking of ecosystem services in
terms of their importance for each well-being domain. The system reflects the questions
on nature, extent and substitutability described above. This scoring system would be used
for each ecosystem service and well-being domain.
Table 8. Scoring system for prioritising the importance of each ecosystem service for each
well-being domain
Rating
Impact I = N + max(E, P) Substitutability S = T or A
Nature of the
impact (N)
Extent of impact Technological
substitutes
– how hard and
costly is it to
fix? (T)
Alternative options
similarity and how
far away (A)? Spatial
extent of
Impact (E)
Size of the impact
– population
affected (P)
1 No importance 1–3
regions
Population nbs per
region –
see Appendix C
<10%
Low cost and
individuals can
pay (private
costs)
Many alternative
options available of
similar quality (or
experience) within
close proximity
2 Indirect and
small
4–6
regions 10–30%
Communities or
user groups can
pay (private
costs)
Some alternative
options available of
differing quality (or
experience) within
proximity
3 Indirect and
big
7–10
regions 30–50%
Regional
Councils can pay
(public cost)
Some alternative
options available of
similar quality some
distance away
4 Direct and
small
11–13
regions 50–75% affected
Needs central
government
intervention
(public cost)
Some alternative
options available but
of different quality (or
experience) some
distance away
5
Direct and big
compared with
national
14–16
regions
>75% population
affected
Not affordable
and no
technology
No alternative
options available
The scores for impact and substitutability are then used to help decide whether an
ecosystem service should be prioritised for a well-being domain and an indicator(s)
identified.
Several options for aggregating the scores and prioritising the importance of an
ecosystem service for a well-being domain are outlined below:
- 22 -
Pre-defined matrix
Table 9 provides a matrix that can be used to prioritise the ecosystem services. As
examples, if a service scores a 5 for impact and a 5 for substitutability then it would be
prioritised and included as an ecosystem service to identify an appropriate indicator. If the
impact is scored a 3 and substitutability a 1 then it is not considered important and would
not be prioritised. If impact was a 1 and substitutability was a 3 then the ecosystem
services is a maybe. In this last instance, the decision on whether this ecosystem service
should be prioritised would involve a conversation with stakeholders (or similar) to make
the final decision on its inclusion in the priority list for that well-being domain.
Table 9. Guide for using the scores to decide if an ecosystem service should be prioritised
I ↓ S → 1 2 3 4 5
1 No No maybe maybe Yes
2 No No maybe maybe Yes
3 No No Yes Yes Yes
4 No No Yes Yes Yes
5 maybe maybe Yes Yes Yes
Percentile approach
For the percentile approach the impact and substitutability scores are aggregated to form
a total score. We equally weighted the impact and substitutability scores, but other
weights could be used to suit a specific context. The percentiles chosen will determine the
cut-off points for whether an ecosystem service is prioritised for a well-being domain. The
percentiles can be derived from the frequency distribution of the scores.
Threshold approach
The threshold approach is like the Percentile approach except that the thresholds are
chosen by the group undertaking the prioritisation process. The thresholds could be based
on the importance the group attaches to the score descriptions.
In our test, and for simplicity, we used the pre-defined matrix to determine whether
to categorise the ecosystem services indicator relevance as high (yes), medium
(maybe) or low (no) priority.
6.3 Identifying well-being indicators
The level of details to categorise indicators varies depending on which framework has
been chosen to monitor progress (Fig 8). MfE and StatsNZ draw on indicators for the three
categories pressure, state and impact in environmental reporting. The EU has
subcategories for the equivalent state with condition and extent indicators. IPBES has a
complex line from potential, realised NCP and output but have used a single indicator per
Nature’s Contribution to People (NCP) to report on the Global Assessment. That
complexity reflects the many mediating factors affecting the relationship between nature
- 23 -
and people, e.g. the existence of anthropogenic infrastructure, vulnerability of
communities to change, availability of substitutes and the ability of beneficiaries to access
the ES benefits (Mandle et al. 2020).
Given the literature, and for simplicity, we split the impact indicators into:
• Supply indicators: indicators related to the biophysical potential of a system to
produce a given benefit. This includes the notion of accessibility whereby an
ecosystem service is only considered to be supplied to people if it is also accessible to
people (even if it is not necessarily used by people).
• Benefit indicators: indicators related to a beneficial or detrimental change to human
well-being. It reflects the relevance of an ecosystem service to people, highlighting
the actual use of an ecosystem service. It also includes the notion of substitutability,
whereby the benefit from nature may be substituted by other anthropogenic assets
(e.g. the water purification service provided by plants and soil could be undertaken by
wastewater treatment plants).
Figure 8. Proposed framing for natural capital and well-being indicators.
The indicators should reflect how an ES/NCP relates to the well-being component (i.e. use
fit-for-purpose indicators), and how it affects different groups in the community. There
may also be some ES/NCP indicators that are appropriate for multiple well-beings. For
instance, to ensure the correct supply and benefit indicators are designed, each
combination of ES and well-being domain should be examined, with questions such as:
• For supply: for this ES-WB in consideration, which indicator(s) best represent how
much ES is provided and accessible to people?
• For benefit: for this ES-WB in consideration, which indicator(s) best represent how
much people benefit from the ES?
- 24 -
To help with the design of supply and benefit indicator, it is also important to reflect on
which natural system (air, land, marine or freshwater) is either a provider of the ES, or a
receiving environment. This will ensure linkages with state indicators. For instance, air
regulation as an ES is provided by vegetation through cleaning processes, but it is the
state of the air that will change because of the provision of that service. It is also important
to think about the ES in the context of each well-being domain, especially when reflecting
on benefit indicators. In the context of health, for instance, benefit indicators would
include a reduction in air-borne disease thanks to air regulation.
7 Testing the prioritisation and indicator design
7.1 Workshop with key stakeholders
Ideally, the prioritisation of ES/NCP for each well-being domain and the subsequent
identification and design of indicators is undertaken by a group of experts/stakeholders.
This will ensure the process is well understood, defendable and most importantly
incorporates and considers a wider range of viewpoints.
The prioritisation and indicator identification components of the process, outlined in
section 6.2 and 6.3, were tested with government stakeholders during a workshop (see
Appendix 5 for details) in February 2020. The 18 Participants came from MfE, DOC, MPI,
StatsNZ, Treasury, PCE, and MWLR.7 The process was tested using the Subjective Well-
being domain and Health domain across three ES/NCP (Table 10). The three ES/NCP
represented one of each main category of provisioning, regulating or cultural ES and were
chosen arbitrarily as ES/NCP of interest for health or subjective well-being. Time
constraints meant that some groups only assessed two ecosystem services for their
assigned well-being domain.
The prioritisation and identification of indicators processes were tested by the research
team before the workshop for the Health and Subjective Well-being domains across
several ES/NCP. The scoring results from testing the prioritisation process are indicated in
the quantitative results below. Qualitative results from testing the prioritisation and
identificatory of indicators processes are discussed as well.
Table 10. Proposed ecosystem services and well-being domains tested during the workshop
Ecosystem service Health domain Subjective Well-being domain
Regulating Air quality Climate regulation
Cultural Ethical and spiritual Recreation & tourism
Provisioning Drinking water Food
7 One participant from MfE could only contribute to the prioritisation process and another from Treasury could
only participate in the identification of indicators process due to their individual time constraints. Observations
from these individuals are included in the analysis.
- 25 -
7.1.1 Challenges and observations from the prioritisation process
Prioritising the importance of each ecosystem service for a well-being domain was
determined from participant’s impact and substitutability scores. The detailed results
presented in Appendix 5. Overall, participants believed all selected ecosystem services
contribute directly to health and subjective well-being. For health, they found there are
few or no substitutes for any of the ecosystem services. For subjective well-being,
participants debated whether there were substitutes for recreation and tourism and food
ecosystem services, but agreed there was little substitute for climate regulation.
Comments about the process – nature of the impact
Participants were asked to write down their thought processes used to determine scores.
For most ecosystem services, participants used the language from the scoring system
(‘indirect/direct’, ‘big/small’, see Table 8) to describe their thinking. For some of the ES-WB
combinations, participants used other language to describe the relationship. For example,
some language referred to timing (e.g. ‘impact health temporarily’) or feelings (e.g.
relieving /influencing ‘anxiety’ or ‘fears’ and impact on ‘mental health’).
Participants described the nature of impact of ethical and spiritual, recreation and tourism,
and climate regulation through the lens of mental health, and noted that while this
connection is important, it may or may not be direct and is probably dependent on the
experiences of a specific group, ‘e.g. Māori, trampers, gardeners’.
However, despite relative agreement that recreation and tourism have a direct impact on
subjective well-being (a score of 4 or 5), there was disagreement as to the scale of that
impact (small or large). One respondent who gave a rating of 4, said that they did not
think a rating of 5 was appropriate since recreation was not ‘fundamental to livelihood’
even if it was ‘central to enjoyment’.
The nature of the impact for both provisioning services (drinking water and food) seemed
to be agreed by most participants, although the magnitude of the impact of drinking
water on health was debatable even if it was ‘necessary for life’.
A few participants pointed out another dimension on the potential vs actual nature of the
impact. For instance, while air quality and climate regulation have a ‘direct’ impact, the
effects of air quality were ‘varied because particulates are not an issue in New Zealand’
and climate regulation was a signal to people to be ‘more optimistic about the future’.
Comments about the extent of impact
Participants were mostly in agreement that the extent of impact on subjective well-being
and health concerned at least 75% of the population. However, there was some
disagreement on the extent of the impact ethical and spiritual services have on health and
climate regulation has on subjective well-being, ranging from half to three-quarter of the
population depending on specific populations, e.g. Māori, tourists, or the individual.
- 26 -
Reasons for some discrepancies concerned debates for local vs regional issues. For
instance, participants described the extent of the impact of air quality regulation on health
in terms of regions, urban or rural, ‘local issues’, and cities. One participant commented
that since air quality regulation was a ‘local issue’ but impacted ‘everyone’ a high rating
was more appropriate. Almost all participants said that the recreation and tourism
ecosystem services impacted nearly everyone’s subjective well-being (rating of 5 for extent
of the impact). However, participants also noted that the extent of impact could be highly
variable depending on urban or rural locations, and issues about ‘travel costs and personal
mobility’.
Of the participants who gave a medium rating for the extent of the impact of air quality
regulation on health, comments from two participants mirrored the descriptions of the
ratings, e.g. ‘urban only part of 8 regions’. The comments from participants who gave a
high rating of 5 were less clearly related to the descriptions for the scoring. For example,
one participant thought that since ‘most ecosystems produce some pollen or filter some
pollutant’ a rating of 5 would be most appropriate.
Mirroring language used in the comments for the nature of the impact, participants
described the various groups who would be impacted by the relationship between
ethnical and spiritual ecosystem service and health, e.g. Māori, tourists. Participants who
specified groups who are impacted tended to give lower ratings (2 or 3) which reflected
the scoring system, i.e. 20–30% of population has a rating of 2 or 3. However, for some
participants there was a disconnect between the comments and the final rating given, e.g.
15% translated into a rating of 5, or little to no contextualising comments for the final
ratings, e.g. ‘4 or 5 population affected’.
Comments about the substitutability or alternatives
Most participants also thought there were no substitutes for ‘natural air’, but people could
seek better air if they moved somewhere else or took medicines (e.g. ‘for allergies’), or
local air could be improved by changing ‘user density’, incentivising ‘electric cars’, or
changing ‘transport corridors’. Three of the participants were unsure about the exact
substitutability of air quality regulation and gave a range of scores (3–5). These individuals
thought that while alternative options were somewhat low, or people could ‘move
elsewhere’, a technological substitute was either ‘expensive’ or non-existent. After
factoring in these ranges, air quality regulation was still considered a priority.
Overall, participants thought there were ‘some alternative options’ for different ‘elements’
of the ethical and spiritual ecosystem service, but alternatives would be highly subjective,
depending on the user. Several participants also said that the ecosystem service may be
somewhat substitutable over time as ‘attitudes’, ‘attributes/beliefs’, and people’s minds
change. This language, consistent with language used in the nature of the impact and
extent of impact described above, led participants to give a final rating of 4 or 5.
There was some disagreement between participants about whether there were alternatives
to provisioning of drinking water and/or there existed a technological substitute. Some
participants who gave a rating of 5 said that there were ‘other sources’ such as ‘salt water’,
while other participants who gave the same rating said there were no substitutes that did
not require ‘significant capital investment’. Additionally, a participant who gave a rating of
- 27 -
4 said that while there was a technological substitute for the ecosystem services, e.g.
‘water treatment plant’, there may be no alternatives as ‘drought may limit supply [of
water]’.
Participants thought that technological substitutability/alternatives for recreation and
tourism for subjective well-being were highly varied, e.g. ‘In theory could…travel overseas
at high cost’ (rating of 4), ‘lots of likely options elsewhere but…accessibility important’
(rating of 2), and ‘emotional, perceptive (unique)’ (rating of 3). Additionally, most
participants appeared to have difficulty settling on a final substitutability rating because
while there are alternative recreation locations and actives or technological substitutes,
e.g. VR and indoor ski fields, these substitutes could be very personal and may be
inadequate for some people. One common theme across participants who gave a lower
rating was the listing of possible alternatives and whether different groups might consider
these sufficient substitutes.
However, participants did not think there were alternatives or substitutes for climate
regulation. The only likely substitutes would be a public cost and provide a different
quality of climate regulation (rating of 3).
Outcome of prioritisation exercise
While most participants gave definitive impact and substitutability scores, some
participants were more uncertain and gave a range of possible scores. For most
participants, these score ranges did not influence whether the ecosystem service was a
priority (Dark green in Fig. 9), might be a priority (Yellow) or was not a priority (Red). When
the score ranges did influence whether the ecosystem service was a priority, the
participant’s final prioritisation score was classified as might be a priority (Light green to
Orange).
- 28 -
Figure 9. Final outcome from workshop participant’s scores determining whether the
ecosystem service should be prioritised for identifying indicators as they relate to the Health
or Subjective well-being domains. See Tables 8–9 for matrix of ratings used to determine
prioritisation outcome.
Health domain
All participants thought that air quality regulation should be prioritised for identifying
indicators related to the health domain, while most participants thought that ethical and
spiritual (57% of participants) and provision of drinking water (75% of participants) should
be prioritised for identifying indicators related to the health domain. In general, there was
consensus that these ecosystem services have a direct impact on health; however, whether
the ecosystem services should be prioritised for identifying indicators related to health
was more heavily influenced by the substitutability of the ecosystem service (for air quality
regulation and drinking water) or the extent of impact of the ecosystem service on health
(for ethical and spiritual).
Participants said that, on average, air quality regulation has a direct impact on the
health for most of the population and the ecosystem service was not easily substitutable.
Limited alternatives and ‘expensive’ or ‘no [technological] substitutes’ meant that air
quality regulation was considered a priority for identifying indicators.
Participants said that, on average, ethical and spiritual ecosystem service has a direct
impact on health. However, disagreement on the extent of the impact of this ecosystem
service on health, e.g. ‘20%? everyone including tourists?’, brought down the average
impact/extent score used in the predefined matrix method (Table 9).
- 29 -
Participants said that while, on average, provisioning of drinking water ecosystem service
has a direct impact on health, there might be some technological substitutes, such as
‘water treatment’ plants, that might require ‘significant capital investment’. However, even
after taking these possible substitutes into consideration, the provisioning of drinking
water was still considered a priority for most respondents.
Subjective well-being domain
Most participants thought that climate regulation (67%) and food (50%) should be
prioritised for identifying indicators related to the subjective well-being domain.
Recreation and tourism had a wider range of final scores: in general, the prioritisation was
heavily influenced by the substitutability scoring. Participants who prioritised recreation
and tourism for subjective well-being thought that while there might be some alternatives
or technological substitutes, those alternatives would be very personal or might not be
accessible to ‘many people as frequently due to time/cost’ and any technical substitutes
may not be adequate for some people. These thoughts led these participants to give a
substitutability score of at least a 3, leading to a high priority. The other participants giving
a low priority with high substitutability thought there were a range of options, with
substitutability being a ‘grey scale’ or ‘very personal’, more costly for urban areas, and/or
dependent on accessibility and the spatial distribution of those alternatives.
Participants who thought that climate regulation has a direct impact on subjective well-
being also tended to also think that the ecosystem service impacted everyone’s subjective
well-being and there were ‘no alternative options’. Additionally, one of these participants
gave a much lower substitutability score without further explanation, meaning the final
priority score was lower for this participant. However, due to time constraints there were
few supporting comments.
Unfortunately, time constraints of the workshop prevented participants from engaging in
discussion of food provisioning for subjective well-being. However, the few comments
showed that technological substitutes for food had a large range of interpretation. There
was talk about ‘lab food” and how loss of food provision could be overcome by ‘industry
farming’. This thought process meant that identifying indicators for food provisioning was
less of a priority.
- 30 -
7.1.2 Challenges and observations from the identification process
Several indicators were identified by workshop participants to represent the relationship
between an ecosystem service and well-being domain (Table 11). The indicators identified
did not consider data availability; rather they identified what was the most appropriate
indicator to reflect the relationships. The indicators aimed to cover state, ecosystem
service supply and ecosystem benefit indicators.
Several challenges and observations were noted with the process of identifying relevant
indicators:
• State and supply indicators can be difficult to separate as it can be challenging for
participants to conceptualise the difference between a stock (e.g. forest carbon
stocks) and a flow (e.g. carbon sequestration).
• Supply indicators should also reflect access to ecosystem service flows. For example,
natural ecosystems may purify water and improve water quality in streams. However,
in the recreation context, the supply indicator(s) would not only capture whether
streams were swimmable (good water quality and safe flows) but also whether they
were accessible, which relates to road/stream access. The benefit indicator would then
reflect the extent to which people are using specific parts of a stream for swimming.
• Multiple supply and benefit indicators for one ecosystem service could be used to
describe the relationship between the beneficiaries (who is benefiting from an
ecosystem service) to the multiple types of supply from ecosystems (e.g. streams
where people swim and forests where people tramp).
• Causality may be misinterpreted and lead to incorrect connections between
ecosystem service supply and effect on well-being. For instance, weight of evidence
may be weak in linking human health outcomes to supply of ecosystem services and
should be investigated (de Jesus Crespo & Fulford 2018).
- 31 -
Table 11. Indicators identified during the workshop
Ecosystem
service
Relevant state indicator Relevant supply indicator Relevant benefit indicator
Health domain
Air quality Condition of the land:
vegetation, greenspace,
species distribution,
Condition of the air: air
circulation patterns
Indicator related to ability of
nature to provide clean air for
health
Vegetation/greenspace, wind,
meteorological data
Temperature inversion
Filtration capacity of vegetation
Negative contribution: pollen
from trees, occurrence of
wildfires
Cropping development time
Indicator related to the
health benefit people get
from clean air
Health statistics on
respiratory related illnesses
(asthma)
Distance to allergens
Depends on availability of
substitutes (air cleaning
infrastructure)
Ethical and
spiritual
Condition of all
ecosystems
Condition and preservation of
culturally significant sites
Surveys on mental health
and what nature means to
people
Drinking
water
Quality and quantity of
water
Indicator related to ability of
nature to provide clean water for
health
Indicator related to the
health benefit people get
from clean water
Subjective well-being domain
Recreation
& tourism
All ecosystem types
(Freshwater, land,
mountains, etc.)
Condition and extent of
indigenous vegetation
Water quality
Biodiversity measure
Health of marine fish
stocks
Separate the various
activities: on and:
walking, cycling, playing.
Marine: swimming,
fishing, playing (surf, etc).
Freshwater: swimming,
fishing, playing
Accessibility (roads to
recreational spots): number of
people within X km of a national
park/beach
Distance to travel
Amount of parkland or reserve
per head of population in urban
areas
Aesthetics
Number of swimmable rivers
Number of walkable
national/regional parks
Number of access points
Utilisation of recreational
facilities
Willingness to pay,
satisfaction surveys
Number of hours/week a
person spend undertaking
the defined activity
Number of people visiting a
place
Number of fish caught
Days spent tramping in a
national park
Fitness, energy level
Happiness measure
NB: Recreation = where I
usually spend my time.
Tourism: elsewhere
Climate
regulation
Biophysical structure of
tress, net primary
production processes
C sequestration
Local cooling
Stability of air temperature over
time
Stability of climate over time
Number of people making
decisions about their lives in
which a factor is a changing
climate
Food Condition of all
ecosystems providing
food
Soil quality
Biomass growth
Provision of food from
sustainable production systems
Number of people satisfied
about healthy food
Fitness and energy levels
- 32 -
7.2 Review of relevance of ES/NCP to well-being
We tested the prioritisation process between three authors8 for all ES/NCP and all well-
beings from the LSF (Table 12). Each well-being was assigned two team members for
pairwise comparison and the thought process was discussed and recorded to support
evidence for the scoring (Appendix 6). This assessment, while reflecting the view of three
persons only, was supported, where possible, by literature, in particular the review from
Roberts et al. (2015).
The pairwise comparison was useful as it allowed the conversation to be enriched by
finding new examples or experiences that would support the scoring for nature of
importance and substitutability. It also showed reasonable consistency between
participants. It became essential, though, to agree on the definitions of both the ES/NCP
and the well-being, as various interpretations could lead to wide variations in scoring.
Another observation is about separating potential vs actual importance for scoring. Some
ES/NCP have been included as part of the prioritisation due to their importance for future
risk. For instance, natural hazard regulation is important for safety and security. While the
criterion has low spatial coverage (coastal zones and areas at risk of flooding), we decided
to include this ES/NCP because of the likelihood of an increase in natural hazards.
By scoring high (2) and medium (1) priority pairs, this matrix shows that environmental
quality and cultural identity are the two, main well-being domains relevant to nearly all
ES/NCP. Health status is the third well-being domain that would need to be underpinned
by ES/NCP indicators, with a narrow set of ES/NCP that would mainly be related to
regulating services. On the other hand, cultural ES/NCP such as recreation, ethical, and
inspiration are relevant to 6–9 well-being domains, including health, time use, knowledge,
environmental quality, and cultural identity. Regulating ES/NCP are also important to a
range of well-being domains, in particular regulation of natural hazard, water, air, climate.
Provisioning services are less spread across well-being, contributing mainly to cultural
identity, income, jobs, housing, and environmental quality.
8 All well-beings were assessed by three experts (Anne-Gaelle Ausseil, Pam Booth, and Suzie Greenhalgh). Cells
with a red asterisk reflect results from the stakeholder workshop.
33
Table 12. Relevance and scoring of ES/NCP against the LSF well-being domains9
Well-being descriptor Health
status
Time
use
Knowledge
& skills
Social
connections
Civic engagement
& governance
Environmental
quality
Personal
security
Subjective
well-being
Cultural
identity
Income &
wealth
Jobs &
earnings Housing Total
Erosion control 2
Natural hazard regulation 9
Water regulation 5
Air quality regulation * 4
Climate regulation * 7
Pollination 1
Water purification 5
Biological control 2
Disease regulation 3
Rec. & Ecotourism * 9
Ethical & spiritual * 8
Inspiration & education 6
Food * 6
Fibre 5
Wild food 3
Freshwater * 4
Biochemical, natural medicines
and pharmaceuticals 2
Fuel and energy 1
Ornamental resources 2
Genetic resources 3
Habitat creation and
maintenance 8
Total (number of high or
medium) 13 6 5 1 6 17 2 8 15 9 8 5
High score – first priority list for indicators
Medium score – second priority list for indicators
Low score – low evidence of relationship between ES/NCP and the well-being domains.
9 All well-beings were assessed by three experts (Anne-Gaelle Ausseil, Pam Booth and Suzie Greenhalgh). Cells with a red asterisk reflect results from the stakeholder workshop.
34
8 Application
This project was initiated to help build understanding and capability at the science policy
interface. It became apparent, however, particularly as the COVID-19 pandemic affected
New Zealand, of the deficit of evidence to underpin conversations across government on
the connection between nature and human well-being. The project was therefore useful
in providing some emerging and conceptual evidence and these early-stage applications
of the are briefly outlined in this section (Fig. 10).
Figure 10. process steps relevance to some application.
8.1 Rapid review of nature’s contributions to people in post-COVID19
economic recovery initiatives
The economic recovery from COVID-19 has necessitated rapid refocusing of investment
decisions. Despite the urgency, it is important decisions on short-term (economic) gain do
not have unintended consequences or bring with them longer-term costs to nature and
well-being.
To assist with economic stimulus decisions, some of the broad-scale relationships between
different ES/NCPs and well-being supported were used as a ‘checklist’ to assess decisions
and track longer-term impacts. The rationale for considering nature was to avoid the
depletion of nature, and the unintended consequences on our well-being (Alison Collins,
pers. Comm). Taking a step further, there were also opportunities to look at building
resilience by including environmental impacts/improvements in decision-making
processes. This would better preserve the choices available to future generations,
particularly if green infrastructure approaches were used.
- 35 -
Incorporating nature within efforts to manage the impacts of COVID-19 and plan for
recovery was challenging, given nature is often a minor component of existing analytical
and planning frameworks. The approach developed during this project aimed to better
show the link between nature and human well-being, providing preliminary evidence via
expert knowledge (Anne-Gaelle Ausseil & Alison Collins), a rapid review of the scientific
literature, and drawing on the ES/NCP and well-being process under development. This
involved mapping the linkages between the ES/NCPs and the Living Standards Framework
well-being domains and drew heavily on Roberts et al. (2015) which used Max-Neef’s
matrix of ‘needs and satisfiers.’10
Given ES/NCPs make different contributions to well-being, this analysis brought to light
several important and relevant themes that may assist COVID-19 recovery, including:
• Material (and non-material) ES/NCPs are essential for backbone economic activities
(e.g. material NCP from indigenous vegetation is the production of honey from
mānuka, which has increased in export value since the beginning of the pandemic
(https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/42360-New-Zealand-honey-exports).
Material (and non-material) ES/NCPs are important for many of our economic sectors
such as tourism, agriculture and commodity exports, and the screen industry.
• Regulating ES/NCPs are essential for our health and personal security – ensuring clean
air and water, healthy soils and the decomposition of waste. They also indirectly affect
the material dimension of well-being by, for example, mitigating erosion and flooding
and thus reducing the costs of erosion and flood damage.
• Non-material ES/NCPs are essential for our mental health, cultural identity, and social
cohesion and will be important for community and individual resilience for COVID-19
recovery
• ‘Maintenance of options’ is a longer term and fundamental NCP and includes
‘Nature’s Contribution to Adaptation’. It reflects the value of maintaining and
investing in natural capital to keep options open for future generations, build
resilience to future shocks (e.g. financial crisis, future pandemics, natural disasters), as
well as adaptation to climate change.
A high-level mapping of ES/NCP to well-being shows that the dependency on ES/NCP for
COVID-19 recovery initiatives is variable. The initial, shorter-term needs would depend on
those ES/NCPs that underpin high priority dimensions of human well-being such as
economy and health. However, over time a wide range of well-being dimensions will
increase in importance (such security and social relationships, freedom of choice and
action), as these are needed for longer-term economic and social resilience. On-going
investment in natural capital will be necessary to ensure the continuity of ES/NCP into the
future.
10 Note: the well-being framing used, Max Neef’s matrix of needs and satisfiers, differs from the OECD and
Treasury’s framework of well-being dimensions.
- 36 -
Green or ‘natural infrastructure’ provides additional opportunities to meet the nation’s
immediate economic recovery needs as well as build future resilience. While much of the
literature in the green/natural infrastructure space often focuses on urban environments
(e.g. low impact urban design) the opportunities are wider and rely on the ES/NCPs
provided by nature and long-term sustainability of economic recovery for natural capital.
8.2 Environmental reporting gap analysis
Our review of MfE environmental reporting indicators and their relevance to assessing the
condition of and trends in ES (Table 13) showed most environmental reporting indicators
related to state indicators instead of ecosystem service supply and benefits.
The current environmental reporting indicators only directly related to six (out of 21)
ES/NCPs supply indicators. There was a bigger gap in the benefit indicators where only
five out of 18 ES/NCP were partially represented by the current indicators.
The provisioning services are better represented by the information collected through
environmental reporting initiatives and other indicators routinely collected in NZ (e.g.
StatsNZ production statistics) that the regulating and cultural services. This is consistent
with other ecosystem services assessments (Malinga et al. 2015; Maes et al. 2016) where
regulating and cultural service indicators and data were lacking.
37
Table 13.Relevance of current and past environmental reporting indicators to supply and benefit of ES/NCP. Indicators in italics are partially relevant
ES/NCP Relevant environmental reporting
pressure indicator
Relevant environmental reporting
indicators (state)
Relevant environmental reporting
indicators (supply)
Relevant environmental
reporting indicators (benefit)
Food and feed Growing degree days (abiotic)
Agricultural and horticultural land use
High-class land for food production
Primary productivity
State and trends in freshwater fish
Livestock numbers
Marine economy
Fibre
Wild foods
Freshwater
Fuel/energy
Sunshine hours (abiotic)
Occurrence of Oil and gas and minerals
extraction
Value of water resources used
for hydroelectric generation
Biochemical,
natural medicines
& pharmaceuticals
Genetic resources
Conservation status of native freshwater
fish and invertebrates, indigenous land
and marine species
Active Sand Dune Extent
Wetland extent
Freshwater physical and coastal habitat
Marine environment
Distribution of indigenous trees
Indigenous cover and protection in land
environments
Ornamental
resources
Air quality
maintenance Air quality (multiple measures) Artificial night sky brightness
Health effects from exposure to
PM10
Climate regulation
GHG concentrations and emissions
Carbon stocks in forests
National temperature time series
Sea level rise
- 38 -
ES/NCP Relevant environmental reporting
pressure indicator
Relevant environmental reporting
indicators (state)
Relevant environmental reporting
indicators (supply)
Relevant environmental
reporting indicators (benefit)
Water regulation Consented freshwater takes
Irrigated land
Groundwater physical stocks
Annual and seasonal rainfall
Deposited sediment in rivers
Water purification
& waste treatment Nitrate leaching from livestock
water quality (river, lake, groundwater
coastal and estuarine multiple measures)
Trends in freshwater fish (state, also a
supply for NCP12)
Occurrence of food-and water-
borne diseases
Erosion control
Land cover and use
Soil quality
Estimated long-term soil erosion
Disease regulation Marine non-indigenous species
Biological control
Pollination No data
Natural hazards
regulation Ocean acidification
Recreation and
ecotourism
River, coastal and estuarine water quality
(multiple measures) Bird species on public conservation land
Use of public conservation land
Participation in recreational
fishing
Ethical and
spiritual values
River, coastal and estuarine water quality
(multiple measures)
Cultural health index for
freshwater bodies
Inspirational and
educational values Bird species on public conservation land
Use of public conservation land
Ski-field operating days
Participation in recreational
fishing
Habitat creation
and maintenance
Indigenous cover and protection in land
environments
Land cover and use (extent)
Conservation status of native freshwater
fish and invertebrates, indigenous land
and marine species
39
8.3 An approach for designing indicators with MfE and StatsNZ
In his 2019 report ‘Focusing Aotearoa New Zealand’s environmental reporting system’, the
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) highlighted the absence of
comprehensive and authoritative environmental data, including an evidential link between
the state of the environment and well-being. Pushing the environmental reporting
programme to connect through to well-being and fill the gap with indicators would
support government, businesses, iwi, communities, and the public in being able to
prioritise monitoring, reporting and resource management decisions.
As a result, the environmental reporting programme at MfE has been exploring how to
expand the set of core measures to demonstrate the connection between PSI and well-
being using an ES-based approach. These new data enable a narrative to emerge that not
only links pressures from human and natural factors to the state of the natural capital
‘stocks’, but also links changes in these stocks to changes in the benefits provided to
people. These proposed enhancements align with the Government’s ambitions to improve
the nations well-being. The Minister of Finance expects well-being to be incorporated into
agency planning and performance reporting. MfE and the latest PCE review acknowledged
that the current set of indicators are not sufficient, with few impact indicators reflecting
the relation between ecosystems and people’s well-being.
MfE is interested in developing ecosystem services indicators that can be sustainability
measured and maintained. To develop a robust set of indicators should involve a
participatory approach with relevant stakeholders to foster ownership and continued use
of the indicators. Stakeholder participation can help to determine the intended use of the
indicators. Using an agreed set of criteria, or principles such as those from Breslow et al.
(2017; Table 14) can help identify appropriate indicators.
Table 14. Screening criteria to evaluate indicators for human well-being (modified from
Breslow et al. 2017)
Screening criteria for
indicator evaluation
Categories
General criteria conceptually valid, environmental linkage, social indicator, understandable,
measurable, conforms to rules for good scales
Context-specific criteria geographically relevant and comprehensive, socially relevant and comprehensive,
relevant for decision-making context, sensitive and responsive to change
Data considerations data availability, variable measured, spatial scope, temporal scope, level of data
disaggregation
Suite consideration objective or subjective, units of social organisation, leading or lagging, broad or
specific reflection of human well-being
Project considerations methods used, estimated cost, potential harm to people, collaboration with
populations whose well-being is being measured
The Living Standards Dashboard uses information provided by StatsNZ and the
assessment of New Zealand’s well-being only data on a limited set of indicators is
available and being used. A prioritisation process as outlined in this document could be
used to identify a set of headline indicators and the justification for their choice.
Additional indicators of lower priority could still be monitored but not routinely reported.
This will provide a baseline for their use in future years should the need arise.
- 40 -
9 Discussion
9.1 Challenges and opportunities
Our process provides a structured and co-produced approach to developing indicators
that better describe the relationship between people and nature
The process we proposed involves co-production at each step. In all, conversation
between participants and discussion were found to be as important as the outcome of the
process. Discussion about the ES/NCP and well-being framing enabled people to think
about terminology and the definitions needed to ensure a common language was
understood by all participants. The prioritisation process also prompted discussions
around the differing views on the importance of nature to different aspects of human well-
being. The process also highlighted the complexity of designing single purpose indicators
that could reflect a wide range of community values, or regionally specific issues.
The use of an ES/NCP concept allowed us to bridge the broader gap between people and
nature, facilitating the development of storylines and enabling people to understand how
nature underpins their everyday lives. As the understanding of linkages and challenges
between nature and people’s physical and spiritual needs becomes clearer, this process
can provide an evidence-based that allows central agencies to support sustainable
investment decisions (section 8), raising the profile of investment into nature and
formalising the contribution of natural capital to well-being such as in the Living
Standards Framework.
The indicators to be developed using the process outlined in this document can also be
used to provide evidence to report New Zealand’s progress against international
commitments such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)11 and the post-2020
Biodiversity targets from the Convention on Biological Diversity. To date, quantitative and
qualitative information has been used to how New Zealand is tracking against the SDGs
(New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2019) or Aichi Targets (Department of
Conservation 2019). Information that demonstrates the values and benefits people get
from nature would enhance the narratives around barriers and opportunities for change
for these international commitments (IPBES 2019).
Using an analytical procedure, our process helps identify robust indicators that can both
raise the understanding of how people rely on nature and guide policy makers in
decisions that affect the environment. We showed that robust discussions on the
relationship between nature and people helps people understand the relationship from
different perspectives and contexts and highlights the challenges of managing the
environment (Appendix 5).
11 We acknowledge that specific targets should be developed for the New Zealand context and the
appropriate indicator(s) would track the nation’s progress toward these targets.
- 41 -
No one framework fits for all
The concept of ecosystem services is anthropocentric as it focuses on the benefits nature
provides to people. However, some would argue that people are part of nature rather than
being served by nature. Thus, a range of worldviews and frameworks/perspectives can be
warranted to capture the whole picture of the nature-people relationship. In New Zealand,
te ao Māori frameworks would add value to the New Zealand picture (Harmsworth &
Awatere 2013).
The need for clear definition, classification systems, and common language (terminology)
came out strongly during the workshop. Discussions on the relationships between
ecosystem services and well-being also highlighted the range of views held on these
relationships and the challenges with prioritising which ecosystem services for each well-
being should be the focus for indicator selection. Having a wide array of stakeholders from
different backgrounds and interests will help ensure the range of views are heard in these
types of prioritisation processes, and for alternative worldviews to be shared.
A clearer process for indicator design is needed
The questions for supply and benefit indicators are not yet sufficiently defined to allow
people consistently to identify state versus supply and sometimes benefit indicators to
represent the relationship between ES and well-being. Part of the issue is related to the
ambiguity of some definitions (as noted above). Aspects to clarify included the range of
beneficiaries and providing some contextual information about substitutability, scale
(national or regional) and whether to account for the risk of future changes. Building an
evidence base on the causality between nature, ES/NCP, and well-being so that the
cascading consequences of environmental changes on people is better understood would
also be useful. Besides, the direct links between the well-being domain ‘environmental
quality’ and conditions of ecosystems need to be considered.
9.2 Links with te ao Māori frameworks
As highlighted by Diaz et al. (2018), there is no universal perspective on human-nature
relations. To recognise the multiple ways of understanding and representing human-
nature relationship, the Treasury and Te Puni Kōkiri have started to conceptualise Māori
well-being (Te Puni Kōkiri & Treasury 2019). Their framework, He Ara Waiora, puts natural
capital around the other capitals, and shows how the environment is intrinsically linked to
people’s well-being. Four concepts of tikanga Māori (systems of values) then underpin the
maintenance of these four capitals. The number of well-being domains is reduced to
seven, with a stronger concept for the role of Māori to be ‘responsive to living and natural
environment’ (Fig. 11), reflecting core Māori concepts of reciprocity and kaitiakitanga.
More recently, the Tax Working Group has proposed an updated version to this
framework (version 2.0) with the aim to inform proposed reforms to the taxation system
(McMeeking et al. 2019). This framework is aligned to the LSF to some extent, with key
differences: their model of well-being is not ‘human centric and recognise(s) that the well-
being of te Taiao is paramount and a predeterminant of human well-being’ (Fig. 11).
- 42 -
Figure 11. He Ara Waiora version 1.0 (left: from Te Puni Kōkiri and Treasury 2019) and
version 2.0 (McMeeking et al. 2019).
McMeeking et al. (2019) recognise that measurements for each of the facets of well-being
are still needed. Te Taiao, the environmental well-being, would have indicators on/about
the equivalent ‘natural capital’ and ‘various elements of environmental sustainability’.
Similar to our findings, they too recommended the inclusion not only of ‘stock’ but also of
‘flow’ and ‘risk’ indicators.
9.3 Future development of the process to link nature to well-being
Sustainable long-term funding was highlighted as a key risk for the on-going collection of
ES/NCP indicators for well-being. A business case that highlights the value of such an
indicator set and outlines a host organisation for their collection would be beneficial. The
initiatives by Stat NZ on SEEA or IANZ could be broadened to include the indicators
identified during the process.
We identified three areas for future development (based on our discussions with
workshop participants, the Treasury and MfE):
• The matrix of relevance of ES/NCP to well-being domains should be cross-validated
by a wider group of stakeholders/agencies. This would ensure buy-in and recognition
of the value of this process.
• Further work should discuss complementarity with Māori well-being frameworks.
Identifying common indicators would help consolidate and prioritise the data needed
to measure and track well-being. A co-development process for identifying and/or
integrating Māori values into the process would add value to process and resulting
indicator set.
- 43 -
• The process for designing indicators of supply and benefit to people needs further
development and the consideration of factors such as diversity of the community,
accessibility to an ES/NCP for well-being, and equity. Specific case studies (e.g. policy
evaluation, monitoring, or reporting) could be used to further refine and test the
revised indicator component of the process.
10 Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Julie Percival and Dan Elder from MfE for help and
feedback on the indicator programme for environmental reporting. Warren Gray kindly
accepted to facilitate our workshop and we are thankful for his input and facilitation skills.
We would like to acknowledge all the workshop participants for their valuable input and
comments, in particular the late Ed Hearnshaw who provided feedback and insights from a
PCE perspective on how to utilise this research to improve regulatory pathways. This work
was supported by an intern student, Cassandra Spearin, who provided an extensive
literature review on cultural ecosystem services and Mātauranga Māori research on well-
being.
44
11 Glossary of terms
Biodiversity: The variety of all life on earth (Maes et al. 2013)
Drivers (in DPSIR): Phenomena (e.g. economic and population growth) that
provide the context for changing pressures
Ecosystem Services: There are several definitions for ecosystem services. They are
all similar, with the most common being:
• The benefits that people obtain from ecosystems (MEA 2005)
• The direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems to human well-being
(TEEB 2010).
• The contributions that ecosystems make to human well-being, and distinct
from the goods and benefits that people subsequently derive from them
(CICES v5.1)
Ecosystem functions: The capacity or the potential to deliver ecosystem services
(Maes et al. 2013)
Human well-being: A perspective informed by a person’s access to basic materials
for a good life, freedom and choice, health and physical well-being, good social
relations, security, peace of mind and spiritual experience (IPBES 2014)
Impact (in DPSIR): The ecological, economic, social, and cultural consequences of
changes in the state of the environment
Indicator: Observed value representative of a phenomenon to study. In general,
indicators quantify information by aggregating different and multiple data. The
resulting information is therefore synthesised (Maes et al. 2013). An indicator that
is usually quantitative, is a single variable with some logical connection to the
process or object of concern (Ash et al. 2010).
Natural Capital: The stock of renewable and non-renewable natural resources (e.g.
plants, animals, air, water, soils, minerals) that combine to yield a flow of benefits to
people (Natural Capital Coalition 2016)
Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP): All the positive and negative
contributions of living nature (diversity of organisms, ecosystems, and their
associated ecological and evolutionary processes) to people’s quality of life (Diaz et
al. 2018)
Pressure (in DPSIR): The natural or human influences on the environment that can
explain changes in the state of an environment
- 45 -
Resilience: Capacity of a system (forest, city, economy) to deal with change and to
continue to develop, not only withstanding shocks and disturbances (such as
climate change or financial crisis) but also using such events to catalyse renewal
and innovation (Stockholm Resilience Centre 2011). (from Roberts et al. 2015).
Response (in DPSIR): Actions by groups (and individuals) in society, as well as
government attempts to prevent, compensate, ameliorate, or adapt to changes in
the state of the environment
State (in DPSIR): The physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the
environment and how these characteristics are changing
46
12 References
Ash N, Blanco H, Brown C, Garcia K, Henrichs T, Lucas N, Raudsepp-Hearne C, Simpson R,
Scholes R, Tomich T, Vira B, Zurek M, Ranganathan J 2010. Ecosystems and human
well-being: a manual for assessment practitioners. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Breslow SJ, Allen M, Holstein D, Sojka B, Barnea R, Basurto X, Carothers C, Charnley S,
Coulthard S, Dolšak N, Donatuto J, García-Quijano C, Hicks CC, Levine A, Mascia MB,
Norman K, Poe M, Satterfield T, St Martin K, Levin PS 2017. Evaluating indicators of
human well-being for ecosystem-based management. Ecosystem Health and
Sustainability 3: 1–18.
Chandrakumar C, McLaren SJ 2018. Towards a comprehensive absolute sustainability
assessment method for effective Earth system governance: defining key
environmental indicators using an enhanced-DPSIR framework. Ecological Indicators
90(April): 577–583.
Colloff M, Wise R, Lavorel S 2020. Nature's contribution to adaptation: insights from
examples of the transformation of social-ecological systems. Ecosystems & People
16: 137–150.
Cook D, Evans P, Ihaka-McLeod H, Nepe-Apatu K, Tavita J, Hughes T 2020. He Kāhui
Waiora: living standards framework and He Ara Waiora, COVID-19: impacts on
wellbeing. New Zealand Treasury Discussion Paper 20/02. Wellington, NZ: The
Treasury.
Czúcz B, Arany I, Potschin-Young M, Bereczki M, Kertész M, Kiss M, Aszalós R, Haines-
Young R 2018. Where concepts meet the real world: a systematic review of
ecosystem service indicators and their classification using CICES. Ecosystem Services
29: 145–157.
Dao H, Peduzzi P, Friot D 2018. National environmental limits and footprints based on the
Planetary Boundaries framework: the case of Switzerland. Global Environmental
Change 52: 49–57.
De Groot R, Fisher B, Christie M, Aronson J, Braat L, Gowdy J, Haines-Young R, Maltby E,
Neuville A, Polasky S, Portela R, Ring I, Blignaut J, Brondízio E, Costanza R, Jax K,
Kadekodi GK, May PH, McNeely JA, Shmelev S, Kadekodi GK 2012. Integrating the
ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation.
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic
Foundations: 9–40.
de Jesus Crespo R, Fulford R 2018. Eco-Health linkages: assessing the role of ecosystem
goods and services on human health using causal criteria analysis. International
Journal of Public Health 63: 81–92.
Department of Conservation 2019. New Zealand’s Sixth National Report to the United
Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. Reporting period: 2014–2018.
Wellington, NZ: DOC.
- 47 -
Díaz S, Pascual U, Stenseke M, Martín-López B, Watson RT, Molnár Z, Hill R, Chan KMA,
Baste IA, Brauman KA, Polasky S, Church A, Lonsdale M, Larigauderie A, Leadley PW,
van Oudenhoven APE, van der Plaat F, Schröter M, Lavorel S, Aumeeruddy-Thomas
Y, Bukvareva E, Davies K, Demissew S, Erpul G, Failler P, Guerra CA, Hewitt CL, Keune
H, Lindley S, Shirayama Y 2018. Assessing nature's contributions to people. Science
359: 270–272.
Garibaldi L, Polasky S, Zayas C, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Brancalion P, Brauman K, Declerck
F, Nkongolo N, Palang H, Shannon L, Verma M, Authors C, Arkema K, Andersson
GKS, Dee L, Perez N, Mirus B, Strombom E 2019. Chapter 2: Status and trends in
Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP). IPBES Global Assessment on Biodiversity
and Ecosystem Services Bonn, Germany. Pp. 1–128.
Harmsworth GR, Awatere S 2013. Indigenous Māori knowledge and perspectives of
ecosystems. In: Dymond JR ed. Ecosystem services in New Zealand – conditions and
trends. Lincoln, NZ: Manaaki Whenua Press. Pp. 274–286.
Häyhä T, Lucas PL, van Vuuren DP, Cornell SE, Hoff H 2016. From planetary boundaries to
national fair shares of the global safe operating space – how can the scales be
bridged? Global Environmental Change 40: 60–72.
Hein L, Obst C, Edens B, Remme RP 2015. Progress and challenges in the development of
ecosystem accounting as a tool to analyse ecosystem capital. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability 14: 86–92.
IPBES 2014. Guide on the production and integration of assessments from and across all
scales. http://www.ipbes.net/work-programme/guide-production-assessments.
IPBES 2018. Summary for policymakers of the regional assessment report on biodiversity
and ecosystem services for Asia and the Pacific of the Intergovernmental Science-
Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Bonn, Germany: IPBES
secretatriat: 44. www.researchgate.net/publication/327023212
IPBES 2019. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity
and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. S. Díaz, J. Settele, E. S. Brondízio E.S. et al. Bonn,
Germany: IPBES secretariat: 56.
La Notte A, D'Amato D, Mäkinen H, Paracchini ML, Liquete C, Egoh B, Geneletti D,
Crossman ND 2017. Ecosystem services classification: a systems ecology perspective
of the cascade framework. Ecological Indicators 74: 392–402.
Maes J, Liquete C, Teller A, Erhard M, Paracchini ML, Barredo JI, Grizzetti B, Cardoso A,
Somma F, Petersen JE, Meiner A, Gelabert ER, Zal N, Kristensen P, Bastrup-Birk A,
Biala K, Piroddi C, Egoh B, Degeorges P, Fiorina C, Santos-Martín F, Naruševičius V,
Verboven J, Pereira HM, Bengtsson J, Gocheva K, Marta-Pedroso C, Snäll T,
EstreguilC, San-Miguel-Ayanz J, Pérez-Soba M, Grêt-Regamey A, Lillebø AI, Malak
DA, Condé S, Moen J, Czúcz B, Drakou EG, Zulian G, Lavalle C 2016. An indicator
framework for assessing ecosystem services in support of the EU Biodiversity
Strategy to 2020. Ecosystem Services 17: 14–23.
- 48 -
Maes J, Teller A, Erhard M, Grizzetti B, Barredo JI, Paracchini ML, Conde S, Somma F,
Orgiazzi A, Jones A, Zulian G, Petersen JE, Marquardt D, Kovacevic V, Malak DA,
Marin AI, Czucz B, Mauri A, Loffler P, Bastrup-Birk A, Biala K, Christiansen T, Werner B
2018. Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services: an analytical
framework for mapping and assessment of ecosystem condition in EU. Luxembourg:
Publications office of the European Union.
Maes J, Teller A, Erhard M, Liquete C, Braat L, Berry P, Egoh B, Puydarrieus P, Fiorina C,
Santos F, Paracchini ML, Keune H, Wittmer H, Hauck J 2013. Mapping and
assessment of ecosystems and their services: an analytical framework for ecosystem
assessments under action 5 of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Luxembourg:
Publications office of the European Union.
Malinga R, Gordon LJ, Jewitt G, Lindborg R 2015. Mapping ecosystem services across
scales and continents – a review. Ecosystem Services 13: 57–63.
Mandle L, Shields-Estrada A, Chaplin-Kramer R, Mitchell MGE, Bremer LL, Gourevitch JD,
Hawthorne P, Johnson JA, Robinson BE, Smith JR, Sonter LJ, Verutes GM, Vogl AL,
Daily GC, Ricketts TH 2020. Increasing decision relevance of ecosystem service
science. Nature Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00625-y
McMeeking S, Kururangi S, Kahi H 2019. He Ara Waiora. Background Paper on the
development and content of He Ara Waiora. Wellington, NZ: The Treasury.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005. Millenium ecosystem assessment synthesis
report. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Ministry for the Environment 2014. A framework for environmental reporting in New
Zealand. Wellington, NZ: MfE.
Ministry for the Environment and Statistics New Zealand 2016. Topics for Environmental
Reporting. Wellington, NZ: MfE & Statistics New Zealand.
Ministry for the Environment and Statistics NZ 2018. New Zealand's Environmental
Reporting Series: Our land 2018. www.mfe.govt.nz and www.stats.govt.nz.
Naeem S, Chazdon R, Duffy JE, Prager C, Worm B 2016. Biodiversity and human well-
being: an essential link for sustainable development. Proceedings of the Royal
Society B: Biological Sciences 283: 20162091.
Natural Capital Coalition 2016. Natural Capital protocol. Geneva, Switzerland: WBCSD.
New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2019. He waka eke noa towards a
better future, together New Zealand’s progress towards the SDGs -2019. Wellington,
NZ: New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 120 p.
Potschin MB, Haines-Young RH 2011. Ecosystem services: Exploring a geographical
perspective. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment 35: 575–594.
Roberts L, Brower A, Kerr G, Lambert S, McWilliam W, Moore K, Quinn J, Simmons D,
Thrush S, Townsend M, Blaschke P, Costanza R, Cullen R, Hughey K, Wratten S 2015.
The nature of well-being: how nature's ecosystem services contribute to the well-
being of New Zealand and New Zealanders. Wellington, NZ: DOC. 145 p.
- 49 -
Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS, Lambin E, Lenton TM, Scheffer M,
Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, Nykvist B, de Wit CA, Hughes T, van der Leeuw S, Rodhe H,
Sörlin SA, Snyder PK, Costanza ,R, Svedin U, Falkenmark M, Karlberg L, Corell RW,
Fabry VJ, Hansen J, Walker B, Liverman D, Richardson K, Crutzen P, Foley J 2009.
Planetary boundaries exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and
Society 14(2) http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/
Te Puni Kōkiri & The Treasury 2019. An indigenous approach to the living standards
framework. Wellington, NZ: The Treasury. 36 p.
The Treasury 2019. Our country, our future, our people. The living standards Framework:
dashboard update. Wellington, NZ: The Treasury.
The Treasury 2019. Well-being budget 2019. Wellington, NZ: The Treasury.
van Zyl S, Au J 2018. The start of a conversation on the value of New Zealand's natural
capital. Wellington, NZ: The Treasury.
51
Appendix 1. Indicators from the Living Standards Framework
Indicators from the dashboard as of December 2019 (The Treasury 2019).
Table 15. Natural capital indicators from Treasury and assigned PSI category
Indicator Category PSIR category
Air quality Current well-being – Environment State
Access to the natural environment Current well-being – Environment Impact
Water quality Current well-being – Environment State
Perceived environmental quality Current well-being – Environment Impact
Net greenhouse gas emission Future well-being – natural capital Pressure
NZ’s renewable energy Future well-being – natural capital Response
Climate regulation Future well-being – natural capital Impact
Sustainable food production Future well-being – natural capital State
Drinking water Future well-being – natural capital Impact
Biodiversity and genetic resources Future well-being – natural capital State
Waste management Future well-being – natural capital Response
- 52 -
Appendix 2. From the MEA to IPBES frameworks
Figure A2.1. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment framework (MEA 2005).
- 53 -
Figure A2.2. Evolution of terminology from MEA (2005) to IPBES (2017) (Díaz et al. 2018).
- 54 -
Figure A2.3. IPBES conceptual framework (Diaz et al. 2015).
- 55 -
Appendix 3. IPBES Nature’s Contribution to People definitions and
categories
NCP Name Definition
1 Habitat creation and
maintenance
The formation and continued production, by ecosystems, of ecological
conditions necessary or favourable for living beings important to humans
2 Pollination and dispersal
of seeds
Facilitation by animals of movement of pollen among flowers, and
dispersal of seeds, larvae, or spores of organisms beneficial or harmful to
humans
3 Regulation of air quality Regulation (by impediment or facilitation) by ecosystems, of atmospheric
gasses; filtration, fixation, degradation, or storage of pollutants
4 Regulation of climate Climate regulation by ecosystems (including regulation of global
warming) through effects on emissions of greenhouse gases, biophysical
feedbacks, biogenic volatile organic compounds, and aerosols
5 Regulation of ocean
acidification
Regulation, by photosynthetic organisms of atmospheric CO2
concentrations and so seawater pH
6 Regulation of freshwater
quantity, location, and
timing
Regulation, by ecosystems, of the quantity, location and timing of the
flow of surface and groundwater
7 Regulation of freshwater
and coastal water quality
Regulation – through filtration of particles, pathogens, excess nutrients,
and other chemicals – by ecosystems of water quality
8 Formation, protection,
and decontamination of
soils
Formation and long-term maintenance of soils including sediment
retention and erosion prevention, maintenance of soil fertility, and
degradation or storage of pollutants
9 Regulation of hazards
and extreme events
Amelioration, by ecosystems, of the impacts of hazards; reduction of
hazards; change in hazard frequency
10 Regulation of organisms
detrimental to humans
Regulation, by ecosystems or organisms, of pests, pathogens, predators,
competitors, parasites, and potentially harmful organisms
11 Energy Production of biomass-based fuels, such as biofuel crops, animal waste,
fuelwood, and agricultural residue
12 Food and feed Production of food from wild, managed, or domesticated organisms on
land and in the ocean; production of feed
13 Materials and assistance Production of materials derived from organisms in cultivated or wild
ecosystems and direct use of living organisms for decoration, company,
transport, and labour
14 Medicinal, biochemical,
and genetic resources
Production of materials derived from organisms for medicinal purposes;
production of genes and genetic information
15 Learning and inspiration Opportunities for developing capabilities to prosper through education,
knowledge acquisition, and inspiration for art and technological design
(e.g. biomimicry)
16 Physical and
psychological
experiences
Opportunities for physically and psychologically beneficial activities,
healing, relaxation, recreation, leisure, and aesthetic enjoyment based on
close contact with nature.
17 Supporting identities The basis for religious, spiritual, and social-cohesion experiences; sense of
place, purpose, belonging, rootedness or connectedness, associated with
different entities of the living world; narratives and myths, rituals and
celebrations; satisfaction derived from knowing that a particular
landscape, seascape, habitat or species exist
18 Maintenance of options Capacity of ecosystems, habitats, species or genotypes to keep human
options open in order to support a later good quality of life
- 56 -
Appendix 4. Equivalence between classifications systems
We reviewed three well-established classifications for ecosystem services (MEA, IPBES,
CICES). There are other classification systems that are available, including the Final
Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS-CS) used by the USA. The various classifications have
been developed to serve various purposes (natural capital accounting, policy assessment,
reporting). Each classification system has its own level of complexity but intend to have a
comprehensive set of ES or NCP that can be reported against (Table 15). The goal of these
classifications varies, with the MEA and IPBES more intended towards raising awareness,
policy making, and communication rather than accounting and valuation purposes. For
instance, Diaz et al. (208) recognise that the categories of NCP are overlapping and
interlinked, giving as an example food as a material NCP, yet also a symbolic element of
non-material NCP.
Table 16. Comparison between classification systems
Pros Cons Purpose
MEA Simple, easy to communicate Original classification
using supporting services
Communication, policy
making and public
awareness
TEEB Simple, easy to communicate Original classification
with habitat services
Valuation of
biodiversity
CICES Comprehensive, underpins the SEEA work
for System of National Account
Complex, difficult to
communicate
Accounting (SEEA),
development of
measurable indicators
IPBES Comprehensive, follows international
approval by governments
Easy to communicate
Meant to include indigenous perspective
Novel concept of NCP is
still in its infancy.
Classification may still
evolve as it is context-
dependent
Communication, policy
making and public
awareness
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) was the major initiative to popularise the
concept of ecosystem services. They had four categories: provisioning services; regulating
services; supporting; and cultural services. This categorization has been used extensively as
it provides an easy communication tool. Since then, supporting services were first re-
classified as habitat services (De Groot et al. 2012) with further general agreement that
they are in fact ecosystem functions (La Notte et al. 2017). The CICES has been developed
by the EU and has the highest level of details (Czúcz et al. 2018). It is based on a nested
hierarchy and was originally developed as part of the System of Environmental and
Economic Accounting (SEEA) led by the United Nations Statistical Division (UNSD). Its
evolution and revision have progressed since 2013 through online consultation. Diaz et al.
(Díaz et al. 2018) identified 18 categories for reporting NCP. The NCP are organised
similarly to the MEA without supporting services. The three groups regulating, material,
and nonmaterial are partly overlapping.
- 57 -
Material contributions are ‘substances, objects, or other material elements from nature
that directly sustain people’s physical existence and material assets. They are typically
physically consumed in the process of being experienced—for example, when organisms
are transformed into food, energy, or materials for ornamental purposes’. They are
equivalent to the provisioning services from the MEA. Nonmaterial contributions are
‘nature’s effects on subjective or psychological aspects underpinning people’s quality of
life, both individually and collectively’ and regulating contributions are ‘functional and
structural aspects of organisms and ecosystems that modify environmental conditions
experienced by people and/or regulate the generation of material and nonmaterial
contributions’. Culture services are not a category as they ‘permeate[s] through and across
all three broad NCP groups rather than being confined to an isolated category’ (see
Appendix 2). This would support a suggestion from Harmsworth et al. (2013) that culture,
especially for Māori, should not be an isolated category, but should underpin the material
and non-material NCP.
The CICES, on the other hand, is very comprehensive, with 90 classes of ES in the latest
version 5.1. The aim is to facilitate the links between the environment and the economy
through an accounting system, where ecosystem assets and their services are tracked and
monitored similarly to other economic assets with direct connections to the System of
National Accounts (Hein et al. 2015). To avoid double-counting, the CICES classification
requires non-overlapping categories and clear measurements. Following consultation
within the EU, the latest version has included the contribution from biotic and abiotic
ecosystems.
58
Table 17. Equivalence between MEA categories, IPBES NCP categories and CICES group level categories (v5.1)
ES
categories
MEA Ecosystem service
categories (2005)
TEEB (2012) IPBES
NCP
IPBES NCP name (2020) (see
appendix 3 for definitions)
CICES version 5.1 equivalent (at group level)
(2018)
Provisioning Food (crops, livestock,
aquaculture) Food 12 Food and feed
Cultivated terrestrial plants or aquatic plants or reared
animals for nutrition, materials or energy (1.1.1, 1.1.2,
1.1.3, 1.1.4)
Fibre (timber/wood fibres, other
fibres, e.g. hemp, cotton, silk) Raw materials 13 Materials and assistance
Cultivated terrestrial plants or aquatic plants or reared
animals for nutrition, materials or energy (1.1.1, 1.1.2,
1.1.3, 1.1.4)
Wild foods
(incl. capture fisheries) Raw materials 12 Food and feed
Wild plants (terrestrial and aquatic) for nutrition,
materials or energy (1.1.5)
Freshwater Freshwater NA
Hydrological NCP are
conceived as regulating
services
Surface water or ground water or other aqueous
ecosystems used for nutrition, materials or energy
Fuel /energy Raw materials 11 Energy
Cultivated terrestrial plants or aquatic plants or reared
animals for nutrition, materials or energy (1.1.1, 1.1.2,
1.1.3, 1.1.4)
Biochemical, natural medicines
& pharmaceuticals Medicinal resources 14, 18
Medicinal, biochemical and
genetic resources
Maintenance of options
Genetic material from plants, algae or fungi; animals,
organisms (1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3)
Genetic resources Habitat services: Maintenance
of genetic diversity 14, 18
Medicinal, biochemical and
genetic resources
Maintenance of options
Genetic material from plants, algae or fungi; animals,
organisms (1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3)
Ornamental resources Ornamental resources 13 Materials and assistance
Cultivated terrestrial plants or aquatic plants or reared
animals for nutrition, materials or energy (1.1.1, 1.1.2,
1.1.3, 1.1.4)
- 59 -
ES
categories
MEA Ecosystem service
categories (2005)
TEEB (2012) IPBES
NCP
IPBES NCP name (2020) (see
appendix 3 for definitions)
CICES version 5.1 equivalent (at group level)
(2018)
Regulating
Air quality maintenance Air purification 3 Regulation of air quality
Mediation of wastes or toxic substances of
anthropogenic origin by living processes 2.1.1
Mediation of nuisances of anthropogenic origin 2.1.2
Climate regulation Climate regulation 4 Regulation of climate Atmospheric composition and conditions 2.2.6
Water regulation Regulation of water flows 6 Regulation of freshwater
quantity, location, and timing
Water conditions 2.2.5
Regulation of baseline flows and extreme events 2.2.1
Water purification & waste
treatment Waste-water treatment 7
Regulation of freshwater and
coastal water quality
Mediation of wastes or toxic substances of
anthropogenic origin by living processes 2.1.1
Erosion control Erosion prevention 8 Formation, protection, and
decontamination of soils
Regulation of soil quality 2.2.4
Regulation of baseline flows and extreme events 2.2.1
Disease regulation Biological control 10
Regulation of organisms
detrimental to humans Pest and disease control 2.2.3
Biological control
Pollination Pollination 2 Pollination and dispersal of
seeds
Lifecycle maintenance, habitat, and gene pool
protection 2.2.2
Natural hazard regulation (storm
protection) Moderation of extreme events 5, 9
Regulation of hazards and
extreme events
Regulation of ocean
acidification
Regulation of baseline flows and extreme events 2.2.1
Cultural
Recreation & ecotourism Recreation
Tourism 16
Physical and psychological
experiences (incl. Tourism and
aesthetics)
Physical and experiential interactions with natural
environment 3.1.1
Ethical & spiritual values (incl.
cultural heritage, sense of place,
aesthetics)
Spiritual experience
Sense of place 17 Supporting identities
Spiritual, symbolic, and other interactions with natural
environment 3.2.1
Inspirational & educational
values Aesthetic 15 Learning and inspiration
Intellectual and representative interactions with
natural environment 3.1.2
- 60 -
ES
categories
MEA Ecosystem service
categories (2005)
TEEB (2012) IPBES
NCP
IPBES NCP name (2020) (see
appendix 3 for definitions)
CICES version 5.1 equivalent (at group level)
(2018)
Supporting
services
Nutrient and water cycling N/A
Included in regulating and
provisioning NCPs
No supporting services in CICES
Primary production
(e.g. photosynthesis) N/A
Production of atmospheric
oxygen N/A
Provisioning of habitat
Habitat services: lifecycle
maintenance
Gene pool protection
1, 18 Regulating: Habitat creation
and maintenance
Maintenance of options
Soil formation and retention Regulating: maintenance of
soil fertility
8 Regulating: Formation,
protection, and
decontamination of soils
61
Appendix 5. Additional information for the well-being workshop and
list of participants
The workshop comprised three sessions:
1 Scene setting – Outlining the context (well-being framework from the Treasury and
environmental reporting), clarification of terms and providing an overview of the
process
2 Prioritisation – Demonstration followed by group session to test the ecosystem
service prioritisation approach for the assign well-being domain.
3 Indicator identification – Demonstration followed by group session to test approach
to identify appropriate ecosystem service indicators for the respective well-being
domain.
- 62 -
- 63 -
Table A3. List of participants
Name Organisation
Anne-Gaelle Ausseil (organiser) Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research
Alison Collins (organiser) MfE
Suzie Greenhalgh (organiser) Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research
Pam Booth (organiser) Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research
Warren Gray (organiser) MfE
Gary Bedford Taranaki Regional Council
Drew Bingham MfE
Deb Burgess MfE
Charlie Clark MfE
Fiona Curran-Cournane MfE
Nancy Golubiewski MfE
Ed Hearnshaw PCE
Carl Howarth MfE
Andrew McCarthy PCE
Beckie Prebble MfE
Silkie XX Treasury
Gerald Rys MPI
Cassandra Spearin PMCSA intern student
Adam Tipper StatsNZ
Elaine Wright DOC
64
Detailed discussion of challenges and observations from the
prioritisation process workshop
Health domain
Overall, participants believed all three ecosystem services (air quality regulation, ethical
and spiritual and drinking water) contribute directly to the health of an individual and
there are few or no substitutes for any of the ecosystem services (median scores of 4, 4.5
and 5) (Fig. A3.1). However, there was some disagreement on the extent of the impact
ethical and spiritual services have on health (median score of 4.5). Half the participants
thought the ethical and spiritual services provided by the environment impacted the
health of most of the country or at least 75% of the population. However, three of the
eight participants thought the ethical and spiritual services provided by the environment
impacted 50% or less of the country and/or population.
Participants were asked to write down the thought processes they used to determine
scores. They used the language from the scoring system (see Table 8) to describe their
thinking of how air quality regulation and provision of drinking water influences health,
but had more difficulty applying the same language to describe the relationship between
ethical and spiritual ecosystem services and health well-being.
Air quality
Almost all participants said that air quality regulation has a ‘direct’ impact on health or is
‘important for health’ and that the effects were ‘local’, ‘impact health temporarily’, ‘small’
or impact ‘some places’. One participant, however, said that while air quality had a direct
impact, the effects were ‘varied because particulates not an issue in New Zealand’. This
language mirrors a 4 in the scoring system for nature of impact.
Participants described the extent of the impact of air quality regulation on health in terms
of regions, urban or rural, ‘local issues’, and cities. While the median score was a 4, the
majority of participants were split between a rating of 3 (7–10 regions or 30–50% of
population) and 5 (14–16 regions or >75% of population). For example, a participant who
gave the rating of 4 thought that since air quality regulation was a ‘local issue’ but
impacted ‘everyone’, a rating of 4 was the most appropriate. Of the participants who gave
a rating of 3, the comments from two participants mirrored the descriptions of the ratings,
e.g. ‘urban only part of 8 regions’. The comments from participants who gave a rating of 5
were less clearly related to the descriptions for the scoring. For example, one participant
thought that since ‘most ecosystems produce some pollen or filter some pollutant’ a
rating of 5 would be most appropriate.
Participants thought there were no technological alternatives (rating of 5) or if alternatives
exist, they were ‘expensive’ (rating of 4). Most participants also thought there were no
substitutes for ‘natural air’, but people could seek better air if they moved somewhere else
or took medicines (e.g. ‘for allergies’), improved local air by changing ‘user density’,
incentivised ‘electric cars’, or changed ‘transport corridors’.
- 65 -
Ethical and spiritual
Participants described the nature of the impact of ethical and spiritual ecosystem services
on health through the lens of ‘mental health’, ‘mentally uplifting’, relieving ‘anxiety’ and
tourism. Some participants also viewed this ecosystem service as creating a sense of
‘connection’, ‘stewardship’, and ‘identity’, which influences health through improved
mental health and reduced anxiety. These participants noted that while this connection is
important, it may or may not be direct and is probably dependent on the experiences of a
specific group, ‘e.g. Māori, trampers, gardeners’. However, all but one participant said that
the ethical and spiritual ecosystem service has a direct impact (score of 4 or 5) on health.
Mirroring language used in the comments for the nature of the impact, participants
described the various groups who would be impacted by the relationship between
ethnical and spiritual ecosystem service and health, e.g. Māori, tourists. Participants who
specified groups who are impacted tended to give lower ratings (2 or 3) which reflected
the scoring system, i.e. 20–30% of population has a rating of 2 or 3. However, for some
participants there was a disconnect between the comments and the final rating given, e.g.
‘15%’ translated into a rating of 5, or little to no contextualising comments for the final
ratings, e.g. ‘4 or 5 population affected’.
Overall, participants thought there were ‘some alternative options’ for different ‘elements’
of the ethical and spiritual ecosystem service, but that the score would be highly
subjective depending on the user. Several participants also said that the ecosystem service
may be somewhat substitutable over time as ‘attitudes’, ‘attributes/beliefs’ and people’s
minds change. This language, consistent with language used in the nature of the impact
and extent of impact described above, led participants to give a final rating of 4 or 5.
Drinking water
Participants described the nature of the impact of provisioning of drinking water as
‘necessary for life’, ‘direct’, and ‘big/large’. Interestingly, this logic led some participants to
give a score of 4 (direct and small) and other participants gave a score of 5 (direct and
large), suggesting that while participants were mostly in agreement that provisioning of
drinking water was direct, the magnitude of the impact on health was debatable. However,
participants were in agreement that the provisioning of drinking water impacted
everyone’s health (rating of 5 for extent of impact).
There was some disagreement between participants about whether there were alternatives
to provisioning of drinking water and/or there existed a technological substitute. Some
participants who gave a rating of 5 said that there were ‘other sources’ such as ‘salt water’,
while other participants who gave the same rating said there were no substitutes that did
not require ‘significant capital investment’. Additionally, a participant who gave a rating of
4 said that while there was a technological substitute for the ecosystem services, e.g.
‘water treatment plant’, there might be no alternatives as ‘drought may limit supply [of
water]’.
- 66 -
Figure A3.1. Distributions of scores to the Nature of impact, Extent of impact and
Substitutability of Air quality regulation, Ethical and spiritual and Drinking water ecosystem
servicers for the Health domain. Refer to Table 3 for definitions of the ratings.
Subjective well-being domain
Overall, participants believed all three ecosystem services (recreation and tourism, climate
regulation, and food) directly, and to a large degree, impacted the subjective well-being of
individuals (median scores of 5, 4.5, and 4.5, respectively) (Fig. A3.2). Regardless of the
nature and size of the impact, it was thought all three ecosystems services impact the
subjective well-being of most the country or at least 75% of the population (medians = 5).
Participants thought there were several substitutes for recreation and tourism (median =
2.5) and food ecosystem services (median = 3.5), but few substitutes for climate regulation
(median = 5). It should also be noted that three of eight participants believed there were
few or no substitutes for the recreation and tourism services provided by nature (rating of
4 or 5) and many reported during the discussion that there were no substitutes for food in
terms of the impact on subjective well-being.
Recreation and tourism
Participants described the nature of the impact of recreation and tourism on subjective
well-being as direct and large because ‘lifestyles in NZ often relate to the outdoors’ and
New Zealanders’ ‘quality of life, happiness, [and] emotional [and] mental [state] directly
relate to the ability to receive this [ecosystem] service’. Participants described the many
recreation activities that contribute to subjective well-being, e.g. hiking, swimming,
- 67 -
boating, hunting, sunsets/sunrises, etc., all of which draw tourism. However, despite
relative agreement that recreation and tourism have a direct impact on subjective well-
being (a score of 4 or 5), there was disagreement as to the scale of that impact (small or
large). One respondent, who gave a rating of 4, said that they did not think a rating of 5
was appropriate since recreation was not ‘fundamental to livelihood’ even if it was ‘central
to enjoyment.
Almost all participants said that the recreation and tourism ecosystem services impacted
nearly everyone’s subjective well-being (rating of 5 for extent of the impact). However, a
few respondents mentioned that while the extent of the impact may be large or all of the
country, the impact was ‘highly variable’ and could differ depending on ‘urban or rural
locations’ or ‘travel costs and personal mobility’. These concerns are reflected in
participant’s technological substitutability/alternatives comments, e.g. ‘In theory
could…travel overseas at high cost’ (rating of 4), ‘lots of likely options elsewhere
but…accessibility important’ (rating of 2), and ‘emotional, perceptive (unique)’ (rating of 3).
Additionally, most participants appeared to have difficulty settling on a final
substitutability rating because while there are alternative recreation locations and activities
or technological substitutes, e.g. VR and indoor ski fields, these substitutes could be very
personal and may be inadequate for some people. One common theme across
participants who gave a lower rating was the list of possible alternatives and whether
different groups might consider these sufficient substitutes.
Climate regulation
Participants described the nature of the impact of climate regulation on subjective well-
being through ‘reducing climate anxiety’ and ‘climate fears’. While some participants
thought that the impact was direct (rating of 4 or 5), others thought that climate
regulation was more an indirect signal to people to be ‘more optimistic about the future’
(rating of 2). Additionally, participants who thought there was a direct impact also thought
the effect would impact the whole country (rating of 5). This is in comparison to
participants who thought the impact of climate regulation on subjective well-being was
indirect and small who also thought the extent would ‘vary from person to person and ‘the
demand for users to experience subjective WB for climate regulation to mitigate climate
change’ would also vary across people (no rating given). However, participants did not
think there were alternatives or substitutes (rating of 5) or if there were substitutes, they
would be a public cost and/or of different quality (rating of 3).
Food provision
Unfortunately, there were few comments associated with ratings on the nature of the
impact, extent of the impact, and substitutability of the provisioning of food ecosystem
services on subjective well-being. This is due to workshop time constraints, which
prevented participants from engaging in discussion of this ecosystem service. However,
participants scores did suggest that food provisioning impacted all the country and there
were several possible substitutes for the ecosystem service, such as lab food and industrial
farming.
- 68 -
Figure A3.2. Distributions of scores to the nature of impact, extent of impact and
substitutability of Recreation and tourism, Climate regulation, and Food ecosystem servicers
to the subjective well-being domain. Refer to Table 3 for definitions of the ratings.
Outcome of prioritisation exercise
Prioritising the importance of each ecosystem service for a well-being domain was
determined from participant’s impact and substitutability scores. Three different methods
for aggregating the score are discussed in Section 6.2. The results presented in Figure A3.3
use the predefined matrix method (see Table 9) to prioritise the importance of an
ecosystem service for a well-being domain.
While most participants gave definitive impact and substitutability scores, some
participants were more uncertain and gave a range of possible scores (e.g. the extent of
the impact of recreation on subjective well-being is small (1) to all of the country (5)).
When determining the final prioritisation score for each ecosystem service, a range of final
scores were calculated, taking into consideration possible ranges in participant’s impact
and/or substitutability scores. For most participants these impacts and/or substitutability
score ranges did not influence whether the ecosystem service was a priority (Dark green in
Fig. A3.3), may be a priority (Yellow) or not a priority (Red). However, for a few participants
these impacts and/or substitutability scores ranges influenced whether the ecosystem
service was a priority for that well-being domain. When this occurred, the participant’s
final prioritisation score was classified as priority/maybe a priority (Light green in Fig. A3.3)
or may be a priority/not a priority (Orange).
- 69 -
Figure A3.3. Final outcome from workshop participant’s scores determining whether the
ecosystem service should be prioritised for identifying indicators as they relate to the Health
or Subjective well-being domains. See Tables 8 and 9 for matrix of ratings used to determine
prioritisation outcome.
Health domain
All participants thought air quality regulation should be prioritised to identify indicators
related to the health domain, while the majority of participants thought ethical and
spiritual (57% of participants) and provision of drinking water (75% of participants) should
be prioritised for identifying indicators related to the health domain. In general, whether
the ecosystem services should be prioritised to identify indicators related to health was
more heavily influenced by the substitutability of the ecosystem service (for air quality
regulation and drinking water) or extent of impact of the ecosystem service on health (for
ethical and spiritual).
The final prioritisation scores for participations was mostly driven by the belief that the
ecosystem service was not easily substitutable within the health well-being domain. Three
participants were unsure about the exact substitutability of air quality regulation. These
individuals thought that while alternative options were ‘low/somewhat’ or people could
‘move elsewhere’ (a substitutable score of 3 or 4), either a technological substitute exists
but is ‘expensive’ or ‘no [technological] substitute’ exists (a substitutable score of 4 or 5).
However, after factoring in these ranges, air quality regulation was still considered a
priority for identifying indicators.
- 70 -
There was disagreement on the extent of the impact of ethical and spiritual service on the
health leading to different prioritisation scores for participants. Some participants thought
that only a small proportion of New Zealand’s population was impacted (e.g. 20 to 30%) or
only specific groups of people with ‘spiritual connections to place’ would be impacted.
This resulted in lower extent scores (2 or 3) in-line with the rubric. While these lower
extent scores did not have a huge impact on the final prioritisation level, for some
respondents this lower extent score brought down the average impact/extent score used
in the predefined matrix method (Table 9) to determine the final prioritisation level in
Figure A3.3 (i.e. may be a priority instead of a priority).
The prioritisation scores for the provisioning of drinking water for some participates was
influenced by the perceived alternatives/substitutability of the ecosystem for health, i.e.
there may be some technological substitutes. Three respondents thought there were
technological substitutes such as ‘water treatment’ plants (substitutability score of 2 to 4),
but these might require ‘significant capital investment’ (substitutability score of 5).
However, even after taking these into consideration, the provisioning of drinking water is a
priority for 75% of respondents.
Subjective well-being domain
Most participants thought that climate regulation (67%) and food (50%) should be
prioritised to identify indicators related to the subjective well-being domain, while a
quarter of participants thought that recreation and tourism should be prioritised. Whether
the ecosystem services should be prioritised for identifying indicators was heavily
influenced by the substitutability of the ecosystem services for subjective well-being.
There was disagreement on whether substitutes or alternatives existed for recreation and
tourism service. Participants whose prioritisation score meant that recreation and tourism
should be prioritised thought that while there might be some alternatives or technological
substitutes, those alternatives would be very personal or might not be accessible to ‘many
people as frequently due to time/cost’ and any technical substitutes might not be
adequate for some people. These thoughts led these participants to give a substitutability
score of at least 3, which meant indicators for recreation and tourism should be identified.
However, other participants thought there were many technological substitutes and/or
alternatives available, e.g. substitutability was a ‘grey scale’, ‘very personal’, could be more
costly for urban areas, and/or was dependent on accessibility and the spatial distribution
of those alternatives. This logic led these participants to give a substitutability score of 2,
which meant that identifying indicators for recreation and tourism should not be a priority.
Some participants thought there were possible technological substitutes or alternatives for
climate regulation on subjective well-being (range of scores from 1 to 4), Consequentially,
this lower substitutability score meant that these participants were unsure whether
identifying indicators should be a priority. Additionally, other participants thought the
impact of climate regulation on subjective well-being ranged from indirect and large to
direct and large (score of 3 or 5). However, this range did not influence their final
determination on whether indicators should be identified.
While participants thought food provisioning has a direct impact on subjective well-being,
one thought there were no technological substitutes (a score of 5) while the other
- 71 -
participate thought there were some alternatives of different quality (score of 2). This
second participant thought these substitutes included ‘lab food’ and loss of the provision
could be overcome by ‘industry farming’. This thought process meant identifying
indicators for food provisioning was less of a priority.
Table A5. Strengths, Weaknesses, Challenges and Opportunity analysis of the nature-well-
being process
Strength Weakness
Storytelling: Raise profile of investment to nurture
environment
Translate science into policy and create impact
Get better information on benefits of nature, how
natural environment affect people and in what ways,
with more specific measurements/indicators
common understanding
Good to participate in groups, as perspectives can
change, and task can be challenging at first
Weigh positive/negative outcomes
Get people to think more holistically
Prompting people with different perceptions
Process driven by policy and immediate political
issues.
Anthropocentric
Difficult to separate state and supply
How can we interpret the absence of ES for a well-
being?
Challenges Opportunities
Terminology:
• clarity needed, language barrier issue
• Common understanding and definition (well-
being)
• Defining values and value system
• need to relate the ES back to the definition of
what it means for people
Buy-in:
• Why hasn’t the concept of ES not picked up?
• What can it bring that is different from before?
Different perspectives:
• how to make it work for a diverse society
(depends on who you are)
• Te ao Māori: integrate people into environment
WB is at the end: need links back to pressures
Resourcing:
• Who is leading and how to take it forward
• Hard choice on funding allocation
Attribution:
• How can we separate human interaction from
ecosystem services
• Causality studies and interpretation of surveys
Managing measure rather than outcomes
Good indicator on benefits from nature fits well with
the “beyond GDP” idea
Fiscal allocation Treasury to the environment for
budget and investment decisions
NZ admired for taking a well-being approach, this
can support this development
How to connect local to global issues (food security)
DOC Outcome monitoring framework: how it lines
up and how programmes connect for indicators
Broaden the thinking, look to Pacific Islands
Relate info to policy question
Improve on lack of info on use/benefit side
Process might be easier through specific case
studies (e.g. Auckland, BOP, etc.)
This is the right moment, PCE review, LSF. Should
aim for a few wins, achievable target then start
reporting on it regularly.
Defined who the end-users are to support the work
and monitor delivery package
Start with the outcome (what we’d like to achieve)
Link with international commitments (SDG, CBD
reporting) and continue learning from key initiatives
(IPBES).
- 72 -
Challenges (cont.) Opportunities (cont.)
Need to define the WHO (beneficiary, service
provider) and WHAT (which aspect of ES are we
discussing)
Prioritisation: hard to quantify nature of impact
Indicators:
• multiple measures needed, but complex. There is
value in getting one number
• Defining boundaries for indicators
• Subjective vs objective measures (e.g. benefits)
• Scale: reporting national not representing
regional and group variability
imbalance in data: some measurable via $, others
not, need other ways
Better link the WBES approach with the policy
frameworks proposed (e.g. NPS-FM values,
objectives and limits)
73
Appendix 6. Support information for the priority scoring
Health
ES/NCP Health: Our mental and physical health
Does [ES/NCP] impact on people’s (can
split by sector e.g. urban, famers, etc)
[well-being domain] directly or indirectly
and what is the size of that impact
(small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or how
many people are affected (based on
number of regions or population)?
Is there a substitute for the
[ecosystem service] service
important for [well-being
domain]?
If yes, is there a cost-
effective substitute or a
similar alternative option?
Include in
assessment*
Erosion control Nature of impact: indirect and small through
giving access to walking tracks (e.g. coastal
track impacted by erosion on Cape Palliser,
may be nat haz reg.)
Rating 1
No (1)
No
Nat hazard
regulation
(flood, drought,
fires, slips)
Magnitude = 2, extent = 2
Some natural hazards can affect health (e.g.
flooding can injure people and lead to some
water borne diseases (may not be in NZ))
Urban: loss of life or injuries (direct), mental
stress due to flooding and slips
(infrastructure), loss of life and infrastructure
due to coastal storm surges (direct)
Farmers: loss of life or injuries (direct), mental
stress (indirect) associated to flooding and
slips (pasture and infrastructure), metal stress
associated with pasture and livestock loss
(indirect)
Tourist: loss of life or injuries (direct) due to
slips on coastal tracks or along rivers
N = Direct and large across the NZ = 5
Flood. Nb of regions
(Northland, BOP, MW, Gis,
West Coast): 5 (P2) at S4 (NOTE
data available from Insurance
association)
In floodplains– stop banks etc
but may increase problem
downstream, or pumps
Coastal storm surge: Northland,
Gisborne, BOP, Wellington
4 regions (P2) at S3
Sea walls, managed retreat
Drought: HB, Northland,
Canterbury 3 (P2) at S1 or S2
Dams, imported feed, genetics
5/16x4+4/16x3 +3/16x2 = 2.4
(out of poss 15)
Rescale to 5: 2.4/3 = 0.8
Yes
Water regulation 2: affects timing/flows – impact similar to
flooding above
N = indirect and large. Water regulation is
necessary for good income from agriculture
(mental health)
Nature = 2, Extent = 5, Population = 5
3: dams can regulate flows
Substitutability = 3
yes
- 74 -
ES/NCP Health: Our mental and physical health
Does [ES/NCP] impact on people’s (can
split by sector e.g. urban, famers, etc)
[well-being domain] directly or indirectly
and what is the size of that impact
(small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or how
many people are affected (based on
number of regions or population)?
Is there a substitute for the
[ecosystem service] service
important for [well-being
domain]?
If yes, is there a cost-
effective substitute or a
similar alternative option?
Include in
assessment*
Air quality
regulation
4: poor air quality affects many aspects of
health through dust, particulates
3 regions (Auckland, BOP, Canterbury)
Nature = 5, Extent = 3, population = 4
Air domain report 2018:
Human activities – eg burning fuels for home
heating, vehicle exhaust from combustion
engines, emissions from industrial processes,
power generation, agriculture, pesticides, and
dust from unpaved roads and unpaved areas
such as quarries, farms, or construction sites.
Natural sources – eg wind-blown dust, pollen,
smoke from wildfires, sea salt, and ash and
gases from volcanic activity
Potential framework: 3 main pollutants for ex
Supply: qty of pollen. Area of wind-pollinating
vegetation.
Demand: nb of people with asthma, hay fever
Substitutability = 5: no real
substitutes for good air quality
yes
Climate
regulation
4: affects heat stress, exposure, etc
Urban: heat strokes
Farmers: heat strokes during harvesting
Ecoanxiety from climate change
Nature = indirect and large, direct, and small
proportion
4: few substitutes for climate
regulation.
yes
Pollination Nature = indirect and small Can substitute pollination with
chemicals no
Water
purification
Nature=5: people want to swim in rivers for
their mental and physical health
Extent = 5, Population = 5 affects everyone
Water-borne diseases
Substitutability = 3: water can
be treated (at a cost) yes
Biological control Nature = indirect and small (2). Control of
disease for animals might affect mental health
for farmers (TB for cows).
Substitutability = 1: lots of
chemically based substitutes
and pharmaceuticals for
treating disease.
No
disease
regulation
Nature: direct and big (5). Physical health is
affected by disease regulation. Note: we
should bear in mind the global impact of lack
of disease regulation through spread of
zoonotic diseases like COVID19.
Substitutability = 1: lots of
chemically based substitutes
and pharmaceuticals for
treating disease.
maybe
Recreation and
ecotourism
4: recreation is important for mental health
(and nature has been shown to improve
health and increase recovery after illness)
3: virtual reality can substitute
for the real thing maybe
- 75 -
ES/NCP Health: Our mental and physical health
Does [ES/NCP] impact on people’s (can
split by sector e.g. urban, famers, etc)
[well-being domain] directly or indirectly
and what is the size of that impact
(small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or how
many people are affected (based on
number of regions or population)?
Is there a substitute for the
[ecosystem service] service
important for [well-being
domain]?
If yes, is there a cost-
effective substitute or a
similar alternative option?
Include in
assessment*
Ethical & spiritual 4: many aspects of spirituality are important
for mental health, in particular
N = direct and big
4: few, if any, substitutes
available for nature-based
spirituality
yes
Inspirational and
educational
Direct benefit to mental health?
Affects everyone but not everyone sensitive to
inspirational value for mental health
N = 4
Not sure. Can’t substitute
inspiration from nature, but can
substitute educational benefits
with some virtual experiences.
Would say a 3?
Yes
Food 4: good healthy and natural food is important
for physical and mental health
4: few substitutes for food (but
food can be imported)
(note substitutability based on
a rating 1-5, not wording in
Table)
Yes
Fibre Nature: indirect and small (2). Wool provides
warmth to avoid getting cold
1: lots of synthetic fibre
substitutes for clothing No
Wildfoods Nature: 1. Not important No
Freshwater 5: drinking water is a human health necessity,
and this water must be clean to maintain
health
N=5, E and P = 5
Substitutability=3: drinking
water is needed to maintain
health but could be imported
from elsewhere (quantity) or
treated (quality)
yes
Pharmaceuticals
etc
Nature: Indirect and big (3). Nature can
provide some natural products that could be
used in pharmaceuticals. 70 per cent of drugs
used for cancer are natural or are synthetic
products inspired by nature (IPBES 2019)
Substitutability = 1. Lots of
pharmaceutical substitutes not
originated from NZ. No
Fuel (renew) &
energy
3: Via heating/cooling, health can be
impacted. However, NZ’s relatively mild
climate for most of the country makes this
less of a problem. May change if temperature
extremes change
Nature =1
2: substitute renewables with
fossil or nuclear fuels (note:
climate policy is reducing fossil
use and nuclear not really an
option in NZ), or use other
non-energy means (e.g. more
blankets for heat)
No
Ornamental
resources
Nature = no importance No
Genetic
resources
2: indirectly through greater diversity
providing more options for health-related
remedies
Some alternatives options are
available from overseas and
medical supply (3)
Maybe
Habitat creation
and maintenance
Provision of habitat for biodiversity: good for
mental health, and intrinsic value people put
on nature It will depend on how many people
value nature for its indigenous biodiversity
S = 5 not substitutable
considering endemism. yes
- 76 -
Time use
ES/NCP Time use: The quality and quantity of people’s leisure and recreation time (that is,
people’s free time where they are not working or doing chores).
Does [ecosystem service] impact on people’s
(can split by sector e.g. urban, famers, etc) time
use directly or indirectly and what is the size of
that impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or how many
people are affected (based on number of
regions or population)?
Is there a substitute for the
[ecosystem service] service
important for [well-being
domain]?
If yes, is there a cost-
effective substitute or a
similar alternative option?
Include in
assessment*
Erosion control 1 (or maybe 2) Slips may indirectly impact on all
people (roads, houses, walkways etc). Likely
indirect and small and more one-time events here.
Impact would be having to clean up slips or no
longer use a walk or take a different road. So, these
activities would take away from leisure time and
impacts will only be felt in areas that people
use/live. Slips are will occur across all regions but
restricted to steep slope areas
1 (or maybe 2) Surficial erosion and farmers. More
soil erosion may mean that land quality has
deteriorated and land management increases. This
takes more time and takes away from leisure/rec
No
Natural hazard
regulation
(flood, drought,
fires, slips)
Slips as above.
Nature = 3 – Floods: Similar to slips. Impacts are
going to be sporadic. Big impacts but infrequent
and spatially constrained. Likely the nature of
impact will differ across the country and how many
folks are affected. Extent = 3 as some parts of the
country highly affected while others are not
Drought (as above). Impact on farmers rather than
general population. Regular droughts at certain
times of the year and certain areas. When drought
comes then more time spent managing the
drought rather than leisure/rec. Urban areas – may
be inconvenient for gardening
Fires = 1 or 2. Not much of country affected,
relatively rare and impact is not being about to use
an area after a fire for recreation or time taken to
fight the fire.
Regional councils or
sometimes central government
funding is necessary to deal
with natural hazards (3–4)
Maybe
Water regulation Ties with recreation.
Nature 4: sporadic impacts of water regulation
where when low flows then may not be able to use
water resources or quality of leisure time poorer
(esp. if have algae blooms)
Extent 3 or 4: usually on a problem during summer
(low flows) or post winter (high flows)
Substitutability: 1. Other places
to swim (alternative river and
beaches sites).
Dams on many rivers regulates
flow
Pools also provide a substitute
Yes
Air quality
regulation
Nature 2: Indirect and could be big but likely not
an issue in NZ Effect is via health
Extent 4/5: only areas with high pollen counts or air
pollutants (black C)
Sub 1: Do other things for
leisure or recreation than
going outside
No
- 77 -
ES/NCP Time use: The quality and quantity of people’s leisure and recreation time (that is,
people’s free time where they are not working or doing chores).
Does [ecosystem service] impact on people’s
(can split by sector e.g. urban, famers, etc) time
use directly or indirectly and what is the size of
that impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or how many
people are affected (based on number of
regions or population)?
Is there a substitute for the
[ecosystem service] service
important for [well-being
domain]?
If yes, is there a cost-
effective substitute or a
similar alternative option?
Include in
assessment*
Climate
regulation
Nature 1: not important No
Pollination Nature 1: not important No
Water
purification
Ties with recreation
Nature 2: sporadic impacts of water quality where
may not be able to use water resources or quality
of leisure time poorer (esp. if have algae blooms)
Extent 4: usually only a problem during summer
when low flows impact on water quality
Indirect impacts through having to deal with water
quality issues instead of spending time doing
leisure/rec
No
Biological
control
Nature: indirect and small (2) No
Disease
regulation
Nature: indirect and big (4) COVID19 (zoonotic
disease that occurred due to lack of disease
regulation
https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/docu
ment.283.aspx.pdf ) indirectly affected NZ but has
completely thrown work life balance
Substitutability: lockdown was
a central government
intervention to suppress
COVID19 transmission
Maybe
Recreation and
ecotourism
Nature: 5. The ability to recreate will affect work-
life balance as no recreation means leisure time
could be impaired
Extent 5. Impact across whole country
Sub 4: Many alternatives but
quality of experience is
different e.g. going to the
movies, etc.
Yes
Ethical &
spiritual
Person specific as people’s connection to nature
will matter for their work-life balance. Māori may
rate this higher as a population than other
ethnicities
Nature 4/5
Extent 5
Sub 5. No substitutes as still
need other places in nature to
get some feeling. Also, some
people have close connections
to a place, e.g. Māori
VR could give you visual and
sound sensing but missing the
other sensors (smell and
touch), which means there is
no substitute
Yes
Inspirational and
educational
Person specific.
Nature 4: Direct but small
Examples a painter who draws inspiration from
nature for leisure or work
Interaction with children during leisure time
learning about nature and taking inspiration from
nature (e.g. building huts)
Extent is small as not a lot of folks are painters
Sub (in terms of nature): 2.
Likely other options with
similar experience withing
proximity
Yes
- 78 -
ES/NCP Time use: The quality and quantity of people’s leisure and recreation time (that is,
people’s free time where they are not working or doing chores).
Does [ecosystem service] impact on people’s
(can split by sector e.g. urban, famers, etc) time
use directly or indirectly and what is the size of
that impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or how many
people are affected (based on number of
regions or population)?
Is there a substitute for the
[ecosystem service] service
important for [well-being
domain]?
If yes, is there a cost-
effective substitute or a
similar alternative option?
Include in
assessment*
Food Person specific but indirect
Nature 2: recognise though that a lot of people’s
leisure time is focused on food and beverages
Extent: 2
No
Fibre Person specific but indirect
Nature 2: recognise though that some people’s
leisure time may involve fibres, e.g. Knitting
holidays or spend leisure time with sewing, etc.
Extent: 1
No
Wildfoods Person specific and direct
Nature 4: hunting/fishing is important to many
people for leisure time. Commercial fishers will
spend more time at work if there are less fish
around. Māori consider wildfoods important for
leisure time (collection of watercress, tawa, etc.)
Extent 3. Not all people collect wildfoods for leisure
or rely on fishing etc for work
Sub 3: likely any alternatives of
similar quality is some distance
away
No
Freshwater Nature 1: not important No
Pharmaceuticals
etc
Nature 1: not important No
Fuel (renew) &
energy
Nature 1: not important No
Ornamental
resources
Person specific and indirect
Nature 2: Kids collect shells and driftwood, but still
likely small impact
Extent 2: not all kids or people engage in these
activities
Sub 1: can purchase options No
Genetic
resources
Nature 1: not important No
Habitat creation
and
maintenance
Nature: indirect and small (3). Creation of habitat
can help provide recreational areas close to work,
helping increasing time spent within nature
Substitutability 1. Lots of other
options
No
- 79 -
Knowledge and skills
ES/NCP Knowledge and skills: People’s knowledge and skills
Does [ecosystem service] impact on people’s
(can split by sector, e.g. urban, famers, etc.)
[well-being domain] directly or indirectly and
what is the size of that impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or how many
people are affected (based on number of
regions or population)?
Is there a substitute for the
[ecosystem service] service
important for [well-being
domain]?
If yes, is there a cost-
effective substitute or a
similar alternative option?
Include in
assessment*
Erosion control Nature 1: Not important
Potentially some indirect impacts related to
managing the land to reduce soil erosion
No
Natural hazard
regulation
(flood, drought,
fires, slips)
Nature 1: Not important
Potentially some indirect impacts related to
managing natural hazards
No
Water regulation Nature 1: Not important
Potentially some indirect impacts related to
managing the regulation of water timing and flows
No
Air quality
regulation
Nature 1: Not important
Potentially some indirect impacts related to
managing air quality
No
Climate
regulation
Nature 1: Not important
Potentially some indirect impacts related to
managing the regulation of climate
No
Pollination Nature 1: Not important
Potentially some indirect impacts related to
managing pollination services
No
Water
purification
Nature 1: Not important
Potentially some indirect impacts related to
managing for purifying water (i.e. improving water
quality) and learning about poor water quality
issue related to health impacts (e.g. heavy metal
poisoning)
No
Biological control Nature 1: Not important
Potentially some indirect impacts related to
managing biological control and disease
regulation
No
disease
regulation
Nature 1: Not important
Potentially some indirect impacts related to
managing biological control and disease
regulation
No
- 80 -
ES/NCP Knowledge and skills: People’s knowledge and skills
Does [ecosystem service] impact on people’s
(can split by sector, e.g. urban, famers, etc.)
[well-being domain] directly or indirectly and
what is the size of that impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or how many
people are affected (based on number of
regions or population)?
Is there a substitute for the
[ecosystem service] service
important for [well-being
domain]?
If yes, is there a cost-
effective substitute or a
similar alternative option?
Include in
assessment*
Recreation and
ecotourism
Nature 2: indirect and small. Extent 1: likely <10%
of population (score with 50% weightings = 1.5)
Recreation and eco-tourism services are important
for some people’s knowledge and skills. They may
be teachers of recreation activities or guides for
nature. However, this is likely to be a small group
of people
Sub 1 - 4: there are other ways
to learn similar skills or pick
up that knowledge (e.g.
books, VR)
Maybe
Ethical & spiritual Nature 5: direct and big. Extent 1: mostly Māori
and potentially other Pacific peoples (score with
50% weightings = 3)
Ethical and spiritual services are important for
some people’s knowledge and skills. This will be
particularly the case for Māori people (and
potentially other indigenous peoples) where their
knowledge is closely tied to nature
Sub 5: there are no substitutes
for indigenous peoples in
terms of what they draw from
their rohe
Yes
Inspirational and
educational
Nature 5: Direct and big. Extent 1: only would
apply to a small portion of the population (score
with 50% weightings = 3)
Inspiration and educational services are important
for some people who may draw knowledge for
design from nature or whose knowledge system is
nature based (e.g. Mātauranga Māori). There could
be implications for brain drain if this service is
degraded
Sub 2 or 3: likely some similar
alternatives available. It may
be that books or recorded
history could be used for
education, and maybe
inspiration (e.g. how a leaf
works for thinking about
energy solutions and the skills
needed to replicate these
functions) but for others no.
For Māori ….Sub 5: there are
no substitutes for indigenous
people in terms of what they
draw from their rohe
Yes
Food Nature 1: Not important
Potentially some indirect impacts related to
growing food
No
Fibre Nature 1: Not important.
Potentially some indirect impacts related to
growing fibre
No
Wildfoods Nature 4: Direct and small; Extent 1 or 2: only
affects a portion of the population (e.g.
Indigenous people and hunters/fishers/etc.)
There is cultural knowledge around traditional
hunting and gathering skills as well as the
knowledge to hunt/fish/etc using contemporary
knowledge and equipment
Sub 2-3: there are likely some
substitutes e.g. gathering from
different areas or potentially
different food sources that
could teach similar skills
Yes
- 81 -
ES/NCP Knowledge and skills: People’s knowledge and skills
Does [ecosystem service] impact on people’s
(can split by sector, e.g. urban, famers, etc.)
[well-being domain] directly or indirectly and
what is the size of that impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or how many
people are affected (based on number of
regions or population)?
Is there a substitute for the
[ecosystem service] service
important for [well-being
domain]?
If yes, is there a cost-
effective substitute or a
similar alternative option?
Include in
assessment*
Freshwater Nature 1: Not important
Potentially some indirect impacts related to the
harvest of wildfoods.
No
Pharmaceuticals
etc
Nature 5: Direct and big; Extent 1: really only
would apply to small portion of the population
who use/make/sell pharmaceuticals, etc.
Sub 1-5: depends on the type
of pharmaceutical etc as there
could be some similar
alternatives available to
provide ability to learn similar
skills or gain similar
knowledge. In other instances,
there are none
NB. this is a maybe, but
decision was not to include as
small compared with other ES
No
Fuel (renew) &
energy
Nature 1: Not important
Potentially some indirect impacts related to the
production of fuels and energy
No
Ornamental
resources
Nature 1: Not important
Potentially some indirect impacts related to the
use of ornamental resources
No
Genetic
resources
Nature 1: Not important
Potentially some indirect impacts related to the
use of genetic resources
No
Habitat creation
and maintenance
Indirect and small (2). Like Inspiration and
educational services, creation of habitat is
important for some people who may draw
knowledge for design from nature or whose
knowledge system is nature based (e.g.
Mātauranga Māori)
Substitutability (3 or 4). There
could be implications for brain
drain if this service is
degraded
Maybe
- 82 -
Social connections
ES/NCP Social connections: Having positive social contacts and a support network
Does [ecosystem service] impact on people’s
(can split by sector e.g. urban, famers, etc)
[well-being domain] directly or indirectly and
what is the size of that impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or how many
people are affected (based on number of
regions or population)?
Is there a substitute for the
[ecosystem service] service
important for [well-being
domain]?
If yes, is there a cost-
effective substitute or a
similar alternative option?
Include in
assessment*
Erosion control Nature of impact: 1 not important. Or indirect and
small (2). Lack of erosion control may hinder
connecting with people (blocked roads, e.g.
Kaikoura earthquake aftermath)
No
Natural hazard
regulation
(flood, drought,
fires, slips)
Nature: Indirect and small (2). Lack of hazard
regulation may hinder connecting with people
(blocked roads, e.g. Kaikoura earthquake
aftermath)
No
Water regulation Nature: not important 1. Regulation of flows
doesn’t impact on social connection
No
Air quality
regulation
Nature: not important or at most indirect and
small 1. Regulation of air doesn’t impact on social
connection or it would be through regulation of
air in green space (urban trees)
No
Climate
regulation
Nature: not important or at most indirect and
small 1. Regulation of climate doesn’t impact on
social connection
No
Pollination Nature: not important 1. Pollination doesn’t
impact on social connection
No
Water
purification
Nature: indirect and small 2. Clean water for
swimming helps social connection with friends
Lots of subst. No
Biological control Nature: not important 1 No
Disease
regulation
Nature: indirect and big 2–3. Not being sick helps
social connection with friends (see COVID19
impacts)
No
Recreation and
ecotourism
Nature 4: Direct and small depending on person.
Extent 1: less than 10% of pop (score with 50%
weightings = 2.5)
Social connections may be centred around nature-
based recreation for some people
Recreation in nature helps positive social
connection. Extent: everyone 5
Sub 2 or 3: Likely substitute
areas or options available in
the proximity.
No
- 83 -
ES/NCP Social connections: Having positive social contacts and a support network
Does [ecosystem service] impact on people’s
(can split by sector e.g. urban, famers, etc)
[well-being domain] directly or indirectly and
what is the size of that impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or how many
people are affected (based on number of
regions or population)?
Is there a substitute for the
[ecosystem service] service
important for [well-being
domain]?
If yes, is there a cost-
effective substitute or a
similar alternative option?
Include in
assessment*
Ethical & spiritual Nature 4: Direct and small. Extent 2: 10–30% of
pop (likely to be a greater proportion than for
recreation above) (score with 50% weightings = 3)
Social connections and how they are attached to
nature will be important for some people,
particularly Māori
Probably indirect and small (2) as spiritual
connection to nature may help connect people
with similar viewpoints and interest
(environmental groups)
Person dependent. Extent all of NZ (5)
For Māori …sub 5: there is no
substitutes for loss of specific
sites/areas within a rohe
[we should acknowledge that
this has already been lost in
some areas and this is where
the grief is most found and an
important part of the Treaty
Settlement processes. So
further losses will be felt even
more]
Yes
Inspirational and
educational
Nature 1: not important. Person dependent. <10%
of pop
Potentially could be some impact around the
social connections that nature-based education
may provide
Direct and small (4) as education on nature helps
social connection and supports network for
nature-lover groups (marine education centre,
cleaning beach groups, community groups) and
kids’ education
No
Food Nature 2: indirect/direct and small (2-4). Extent 4:
likely affects most folks (score with 50%
weightings = 3.5)
The impact is around the consumption of food
rather than provision of food. Food is an
important component of social connections for
many people
Social connection through food. A % of pop into
food from nature (3). Person dependent
Sub 1-3: likely other similar
substitutes close by or further
away
No
Fibre Nature 2: indirect and small. Extent 1: likely less
than 10% (score with 50% weightings = 1.5)
The impact is around the use of fibre rather than
growing or harvest of fibre, e.g. woodwork groups
or knitting circles
Social connection through knitting groups. Direct
and small (4), small % of pop (1)
Sub 13: likely other similar
substitutes close by or further
away
No
- 84 -
ES/NCP Social connections: Having positive social contacts and a support network
Does [ecosystem service] impact on people’s
(can split by sector e.g. urban, famers, etc)
[well-being domain] directly or indirectly and
what is the size of that impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or how many
people are affected (based on number of
regions or population)?
Is there a substitute for the
[ecosystem service] service
important for [well-being
domain]?
If yes, is there a cost-
effective substitute or a
similar alternative option?
Include in
assessment*
Wildfoods Nature 3: direct and small. Extent 1: likely less than
10% (score with 50% weightings = 2)
While direct there are likely other components
that contribute to a person’s social connections
and support network
Should acknowledge that for some (small portion
of the population) the social contacts etc around
hunting/harvest/gathering of wildfoods could be
important
Sub 2 of 3: likely other options
in proximity or at distance that
can use
No
Freshwater Nature: indirect and small 2. Clean water for
swimming helps social connection with friends
Lots of subst. No
Pharmaceuticals
etc
Social connection through naturopathy. A % of
pop into medicines from nature (1). Person
dependent. Indirect and small (depends on
people) (2)
No
Fuel (renew) &
energy
Social connection through bonfires? 1-2 No
Ornamental
resources
Nature 2: indirect and small. Extent 1: likely less
than 10% (score with 50% weightings = 1.5). Social
connection through collection of shells etc. A % of
pop into ornamentals from nature (Māori probably
different) (1). Person dependent
The impact is around the use of ornamental
resources rather than collection of ornamental
resources, e.g. crafting groups
Sub 1: likely substitutes or
same quality could be sourced
No
Genetic
resources
Nature 1: not important No
Habitat creation
and maintenance
Indirect and small (depends on people) (2).
Creating habitat may be done through
environmental groups and communities
(restoration) creating social connections. It could
also indirectly provide recreational areas, but this
would be through another ES
NA No
- 85 -
Civic engagement and governance
ES/NCP Civic engagement and governance: People’s engagement in the governance of their
country and their civic responsibilities, how ‘good’ New Zealand’s governance is
perceived to be, and the procedural fairness of society.
Does people’s (can split by sector, e.g. urban,
famers, etc.) civic engagement and governance
impact on [ecosystem service] directly or indirectly
and what is the size of that impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or how many
people are affected (based on number of regions or
population)?
[Note: the format of the question was changed to
better reflect the intent of this well-being domain]
Is there a substitute for
the [ecosystem service]
service important for
[well-being domain]?
If yes, is there a cost-
effective substitute or a
similar alternative
option?
Include in
assessment*
Erosion control Nature 4.5: Direct and small/big. Extent 2: likely 10–
30% of population (score with 50% weightings = 3.25)
This is in relation to environmental governance and
policy. The NPSFM is an area where community
engagement, governance and collaboration around
decision-making is important. Sediment in water is one
aspect of the NPSFM and thus both the laws and
people’s engagement in the regional/catchment
practices is and will impact on erosion control services
Note: Treaty rights and responsibilities would be tied
to this
N/A. There is no
substitute for governance
and civic responsibility for
the provision of erosion
control. Governance
covers both the formal
laws and
community/society codes
of behaviour
Maybe
(scores
between 3
and 4
considered as
maybe)
Natural hazard
regulation
(flood, drought,
fires, slips)
Nature 4.5: Direct and small/big. Extent 4: likely 50–
75% of population (score with 50% weightings = 4.25)
Climate adaptation and how communities and people
are increasingly engaged in these discussions as
natural hazards (and concern about increasing hazard
events) increase. This is seen through national interest,
regional council planning and community actions.
Extent based on number of regions assessing risk and
people affected by hazards
N/A. There is no
substitute for governance
and civic responsibility for
the provision of natural
hazard regulation.
Governance covers both
the formal laws and
community/society codes
of behaviour.
Yes
(scores above
4 considered
as a yes)
Water regulation Nature 4.5: Direct and small/big. Extent 3: likely 30-50%
of population (score with 50% weightings = 3.75)
This is in relation to environmental governance and
policy. The NPSFM is an area where community
engagement, governance and collaboration around
decision-making is important. Engagement in the
development and implementation (e.g. community
processes at catchment scale) of the NPSFM will
directly affect water regulation services and the
expectation of the quality of that services. Other
political drivers such as the Zero Carbon Bill and 1
Billion Trees and corresponding societal response will
also impact on water regulation
Note: Treaty rights and responsibilities would be tied
to this
N/A. There is no
substitute for governance
and civic responsibility for
the provision of natural
hazard regulation.
Governance covers both
the formal laws and
community/society codes
of behaviour
Maybe
(scores
between 3
and 4
considered as
maybe)
- 86 -
ES/NCP Civic engagement and governance: People’s engagement in the governance of their
country and their civic responsibilities, how ‘good’ New Zealand’s governance is
perceived to be, and the procedural fairness of society.
Does people’s (can split by sector, e.g. urban,
famers, etc.) civic engagement and governance
impact on [ecosystem service] directly or indirectly
and what is the size of that impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or how many
people are affected (based on number of regions or
population)?
[Note: the format of the question was changed to
better reflect the intent of this well-being domain]
Is there a substitute for
the [ecosystem service]
service important for
[well-being domain]?
If yes, is there a cost-
effective substitute or a
similar alternative
option?
Include in
assessment*
Air quality Nature 4: Direct and small. Extent 2: likely 10–30% of
population (score with 50% weightings = 3)
While air quality is not currently a big issue in NZ air
quality is impacted by governance, e.g. banning of
wood burners has improved air quality in Christchurch
and Rotorua. Civic engagement has not that large for
air quality in comparison to other issues
No
(scores less
than 3 is
considered as
no)
Climate
regulation
Nature 4.5: Direct and small/big. Extent 3: likely 30–
50% of population involved in positive climate
regulation action (score with 50% weightings = 3.75)
This is in relation to environmental governance and
policy. The aspect of climate regulation noted here is
global climate regulation and laws (i.e. climate policy)
and engagement of the population in climate action
(particularly related to natural capital) and also
debating climate policy. Solutions to climate regulation
and who bears the responsibility of reducing climate
impacts is a key governance issue. Other policy/actions
also influence climate regulation. For example, 1 Billion
Trees programme may increase sequestration rates in
NZ thus affecting climate regulation. Wilding pine
control, on the other hand, may reduce sequestration
(even those positive benefits for biodiversity, water
regulation and aesthetic values)
Note: Treaty rights and responsibilities would be tied
to this
N/A. There is no
substitute for governance
and civic responsibility for
the provision climate
regulation. Governance
covers both the formal
laws and
community/society codes
of behaviour
Maybe
(scores
between 3
and 4
considered as
maybe
Pollination Nature 2: In direct and small. Extent 1: likely less than
10% of population involved.
Planting of pollinator attractor plants is being driven by
some people’s engagement and civic responsibility.
However, this is likely only by a small portion of the
population. No legal framing related to pollination.
No
- 87 -
ES/NCP Civic engagement and governance: People’s engagement in the governance of their
country and their civic responsibilities, how ‘good’ New Zealand’s governance is
perceived to be, and the procedural fairness of society.
Does people’s (can split by sector, e.g. urban,
famers, etc.) civic engagement and governance
impact on [ecosystem service] directly or indirectly
and what is the size of that impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or how many
people are affected (based on number of regions or
population)?
[Note: the format of the question was changed to
better reflect the intent of this well-being domain]
Is there a substitute for
the [ecosystem service]
service important for
[well-being domain]?
If yes, is there a cost-
effective substitute or a
similar alternative
option?
Include in
assessment*
Water
purification
Nature 5: Direct and big. Extent 3: likely 30-50% of
population (score with 50% weightings = 4)
This is in relation to environmental governance and
policy. The NPSFM is an area where community
engagement, governance and collaboration around
decision-making is important. Water quality is one
aspect of the NPSFM.
Poor water quality has also driven many people to
increase their civic engagement, form community
groups and take individual action to improve water
quality by improving water purification services.
Note: Treaty rights and responsibilities would be tied
to this
N/A. There is no
substitute for governance
and civic responsibility for
the provision of water
purification services.
Governance covers both
the formal laws and
community/society codes
of behaviour
Yes
(scores above
4 considered
as a yes)
Biological control Nature 4: Direct and small. Extent 1: likely < 10% of
population (score with 50% weightings = 2.5)
High use of chemicals and reside issues have led some
people to start taking or to ask for actions to reduce
chemical use and other means to control weeds, pests,
and diseases. This has led to banning of some
chemicals and greater exploration of natural
approaches (e.g. weed biocontrol or beneficial insect
plantings). Social licence is important for some control
mechanisms (e.g. insecticide use) and has driven
actions to find more natural solutions. However, some
natural solutions (e.g. diseases to control rabbits) have
resulted in civic action to not sure those approaches
N/A. There is no
substitute for governance
and civic responsibility for
the provision of biological
control services.
Governance covers both
the formal laws and
community/society codes
of behaviour
No
Disease
regulation
Disease regulation is an ES that has been degraded
due to land-use change, increasing prevalence to
zoonotic diseases overseas. COVID19 is not a NZ-
specific issue. In NZ, the zoonotic diseases are
leptospirosis, staphylococcus, salmonella, affecting
rural communities (13% StatsNZ)
Nature: direct and small. Population 13% (rural
population)
No
- 88 -
ES/NCP Civic engagement and governance: People’s engagement in the governance of their
country and their civic responsibilities, how ‘good’ New Zealand’s governance is
perceived to be, and the procedural fairness of society.
Does people’s (can split by sector, e.g. urban,
famers, etc.) civic engagement and governance
impact on [ecosystem service] directly or indirectly
and what is the size of that impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or how many
people are affected (based on number of regions or
population)?
[Note: the format of the question was changed to
better reflect the intent of this well-being domain]
Is there a substitute for
the [ecosystem service]
service important for
[well-being domain]?
If yes, is there a cost-
effective substitute or a
similar alternative
option?
Include in
assessment*
Recreation and
ecotourism
Nature 2: Indirect and small. Extent 2: likely 10–30% of
population (score with 50% weightings = 2)
In some parts of NZ, the over-use of some natural
areas is causing concern with local populations, which
has led to some actions by local communities to
control tourism
A more direct impact is the influence of
hunting/fishing/shooting season regulations these
recreational activities. However, these regulations are
designed to maintain healthy populations to allow the
activities to continue over time
N/A. There is no
substitute for governance
and civic responsibility for
the provision of
recreation and
ecotourism services.
Governance covers both
the formal laws and
community/society codes
of behaviour
No
Ethical & spiritual Nature 2: Indirect and small. Extent 1: likely <10% of
population (score with 50% weightings = 1.5)
Involvement in community actions or planning
processes related to the use of natural resources, could
for some, increase their ethical values (e.g. social
relations and sense of place) or their spiritual values
(e.g. reconnection with their whenua)
N/A. There is no
substitute for governance
and civic responsibility for
the provision of ethical
and spiritual services.
Governance covers both
the formal laws and
community/society codes
of behaviour
No
Inspirational and
educational
Nature 1: not important No
Food Nature 2: Indirect and small. Extent 2: likely 10–30% of
population (score with 50% weightings = 2)
The governance of natural resources and civic actions
can influence what and how food is grown. For
example, civic actions (e.g. dirty dairying campaign)
and water regulations is changing how agricultural land
is management and the type of foods grown (e.g.
pressure to move some land out of pastoral uses)
N/A. There is no
substitute for governance
and civic responsibility for
the provision of food.
Governance covers both
the formal laws and
community/society codes
of behaviour
No
Fibre Nature 2: indirect and small. Extent 1: likely <10% of
population (score with 50% weightings = 1.5)
The governance of natural resources and civic actions
can influence what and how trees are grown or wools is
produced. For example, civic actions (e.g. dirty dairying
campaign) and water regulations and climate policy is
likely to convert some agricultural land to forestry.
Location of exotic forest and forest harvest practices
are being driven by a mix of policy but also outcries
from local communities around the issues with exotic
forestry (e.g. wilding pines, loss of employment and
post-harvest damage)
N/A. There is no
substitute for governance
and civic responsibility for
the provision of fibre.
Governance covers both
the formal laws and
community/society codes
of behaviour
No
- 89 -
ES/NCP Civic engagement and governance: People’s engagement in the governance of their
country and their civic responsibilities, how ‘good’ New Zealand’s governance is
perceived to be, and the procedural fairness of society.
Does people’s (can split by sector, e.g. urban,
famers, etc.) civic engagement and governance
impact on [ecosystem service] directly or indirectly
and what is the size of that impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or how many
people are affected (based on number of regions or
population)?
[Note: the format of the question was changed to
better reflect the intent of this well-being domain]
Is there a substitute for
the [ecosystem service]
service important for
[well-being domain]?
If yes, is there a cost-
effective substitute or a
similar alternative
option?
Include in
assessment*
Wildfoods Nature 2: direct and small. Extent 2: likely 10-30% of
population (score with 50% weightings = 2)
There could be some issues in relation to
environmental governance and policy. Mahinga kai is a
value/objective within the National Objectives
Framework of the NPSFM. Thus, policy and
people/community values are likely to lead to
improved water conditions that better supports
mahinga kai. This would be indirect
A more direct impact is hunting/fishing/shooting
season regulations impact on access to some
wildfoods. However, arguably his is related to
recreation services
Note: Treaty rights and responsibilities would be tied
to this.
N/A. There is no
substitute for governance
and civic responsibility for
the provision of
wildfoods. Governance
covers both the formal
laws and
community/society codes
of behaviour
No
Freshwater Nature 4: indirect and small. Extent 1: likely <10% of
population (score with 50% weightings = 2.5)
There could be some issues in relation to
environmental governance and policy and the
provision of safe drinking water. While historically this
has not been an issue some recent cases like Havelock
North have arisen raising the profile of drinking water
in NZ. This is a consideration in the NPSFM where
community engagement, governance and
collaboration around decision-making is important
Note: Treaty rights and responsibilities would be tied
to this.
N/A. There is no
substitute for governance
and civic responsibility for
the provision of
freshwater. Governance
covers both the formal
laws and
community/society codes
of behaviour
No
Pharmaceuticals
etc
Nature 1: not important No
Fuel (renew) &
energy
Nature 1: not important No
Ornamental
resources
Nature 1: not important No
Genetic
resources
Nature 1: not important
Note: Genetic modification is not considered as this
service relates to the genes and genetic resources in
nature (not the manipulation of genes)
No
Habitat creation
and maintenance
Governance for land tenure has strong impact on
creation of habitat. DOC’s responsibility is to maintain
habitat Nature: direct and big
Yes
- 90 -
Environmental quality
ES/NCP Environmental quality: The natural and physical environment and how it impacts people
today
Does [ecosystem service] impact on
people’s (can split by sector e.g. urban,
famers, etc) [well-being domain] directly
or indirectly and what is the size of that
impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or how
many people are affected (based on
number of regions or population)?
Is there a substitute for the
[ecosystem service] service
important for [well-being
domain]?
If yes, is there a cost-effective
substitute or a similar alternative
option?
Include in
assessment*
Erosion control Erosion degrades the quality of the land 5
Nature of impact: direct and small (4).
Everywhere, mainly hillcountry (5). Protects
from land degradation processes for other
ecosystems. Mainly useful for productive
land
Extent = local occurrences but happens
everywhere, 5
Tech options to reduce erosion, but
it would still be seen as a stopgap
OR seeing infrastructure that reduces
erosion could impact perception of
quality if it’s not done with that in
mind. Private cost or RC cost
depending on where the erosion is
occurring. Could be expensive
though.
NA. No subst of ES for
environmental quality (anywhere)
Yes
Natural hazard
regulation
(flood, drought,
fires, slips)
e.g. If a slip occurs it could be because of
natural forces and/or man-made
interventions that weakened the soil
structure. Therefore, the perception could
be an area more prone to slips is indicative
of poor quality. 5 for some hazards and 4
for others depending on the region
Flooding: flood plains (natural), but more
frequent floods or more severe floods could
be connected with CC & natural hazard reg.
Drought: people know there are droughts,
but it the change from normal that could
infer degrading quality
Nature of impact: direct and big (5).
Regulation of fire, drought important for
environment quality, helps resilience of spp.
Extent = local, but different hazards in
regions 5
RC or gov intervention and could be
expensive
Dams, sea walls, but does it affect
env quality?
Yes
- 91 -
ES/NCP Environmental quality: The natural and physical environment and how it impacts people
today
Does [ecosystem service] impact on
people’s (can split by sector e.g. urban,
famers, etc) [well-being domain] directly
or indirectly and what is the size of that
impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or how
many people are affected (based on
number of regions or population)?
Is there a substitute for the
[ecosystem service] service
important for [well-being
domain]?
If yes, is there a cost-effective
substitute or a similar alternative
option?
Include in
assessment*
Water regulation Nature of impact 5. Really important for
natural capital, stock of fish
Drainage: increased runoff could infer poor
quality (e.g. too much pavement) 4
Extent = local occurrences, 1
Not sure there are substitutes for
some
Could build a dam and then that
would become a way to signal
quality, but it could also cause
downstream environmental issues
like cutting off fish runs OR could be
a large signal of drought issues.
Could have to RC or gov intervention
Dams. Negative impact (fish
passage)
Replace roads, sidewalks with more
green space & permeable pavement
Yes
Air quality Air in non-urban zones tend to be preferred
because it’s cleaner: 5
Nature of impact 2. Indirect and small?
Mainly directed towards people, not
environment
Extent = urban zones primarily (2) but 3 in
terms of population proportion
RC/gov intervention for
redevelopment to reduce pollution.
3–4
Personal behavioural change to
reduce own impact 1
No (BUT
potential
future value)
Climate
regulation
Change from normal, or expectations infers
a degrading environmental quality. 5
Nature of impact 5. Regulation of climate
important to avoid CC impacts on natural
ecosystems
Extent: countrywide 5
Not possible without global action Yes
Pollination The severe absence of natural pollination
gets attention because we take it for
granted, but this is more of a signal around
biodiversity loss. We could see fewer
wildflower, or our food costs go up or we
are negatively impacted through existence
value. Probably more indirect effect, 2/3
Nature of impact 5. Pollination essential for
natural ecosystems
Extent = no boundaries, 5
Mechanical pollination for crops, but
would have to solve cause of loss:
insecticides, pesticides, habitat loss,
climate change, etc. 5
There is no substitute for pollination
of non-managed ecosystems
(natural) by native bees, wind, etc.
Personal behavioural change to
reduce own impact 1
Yes
- 92 -
ES/NCP Environmental quality: The natural and physical environment and how it impacts people
today
Does [ecosystem service] impact on
people’s (can split by sector e.g. urban,
famers, etc) [well-being domain] directly
or indirectly and what is the size of that
impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or how
many people are affected (based on
number of regions or population)?
Is there a substitute for the
[ecosystem service] service
important for [well-being
domain]?
If yes, is there a cost-effective
substitute or a similar alternative
option?
Include in
assessment*
Water
purification
Through recreation and freshwater: clean
water provides direct benefits through rec
& drinking water
Nature of impact 5. Water purification
essential for freshwater habitats
Water is calming, but we associate weird
smells and/or bad look of water with
environmental degradation. We don’t want
to be around water that smells or looks
unclean, so, 5
Extent = countrywide
Alternative locations (4)
Could implement tech/plantings to
make natural filtration process more
robust (e.g. Riparian plantings, filters
for industrial waste)
there is no substitute to perceived
environmental quality if pure water
quality is not available
yes
Biological
control/disease
regulation
A higher prevalence of invasive species
infers degrading environmental quality
(perception) through man-made
interventions. 5
Nature of impact 5. essential for natural
ecosystems quality
Could also say: lack of biological control
(e.g. increase use of chemical for crop
pathogens, etc.) has high impact (direct and
big) on perceived env quality
Extent = countrywide
Ecosystems (e.g. bio-agent) influence
disease/pest in humans and husbandry,
impact on perceived environmental quality
by avoiding using chemicals
Pest control measures: some are
personal, some RC can do, central
gov biosecurity/DOC, control or
eradication could be prohibitive
expensive depending on species
subst. would be artificial/induced
(e.g. chemical, mechanical) control
and how it impacts on perceived env.
Quality (which is variable, depending
on the person)
Mammal pest control: 1080.
Weeds: pesticides
Insect: insecticides
Virus: vaccines (so no subst, as
biologically based)
yes
Recreation and
ecotourism
Rec allows us to experience and rank the
quality of the environmental. We wouldn’t
want to go hiking in a place with degrading
quality. Not sure if rec impacts quality
except when there is too much. 2/4
Nature of impact: direct and small (4).
Recreation services impacting on
environmental quality? great walks. Too
many tourists impacts on perceived
naturalness.
Extent: countrywide
Alternative rec places allows us to
experience quality differently (4)
yes
- 93 -
ES/NCP Environmental quality: The natural and physical environment and how it impacts people
today
Does [ecosystem service] impact on
people’s (can split by sector e.g. urban,
famers, etc) [well-being domain] directly
or indirectly and what is the size of that
impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or how
many people are affected (based on
number of regions or population)?
Is there a substitute for the
[ecosystem service] service
important for [well-being
domain]?
If yes, is there a cost-effective
substitute or a similar alternative
option?
Include in
assessment*
Ethical & spiritual Your sense of connection with the land
would probably lead you to take care of the
environment more. Lack of sense of place
might lead you to not care for the land. 3/5
Nature of impact: (4–5). Person dependent.
Perception of environmental quality
depends on spiritual connection
Extent = the culture tends to care for the
land, 5
No real alternative yes
Inspirational and
educational
Poor environmental quality would probably
lead to less inspiration. Taking too much
from nature (e.g. everyone takes a rock)
would eventually degrade the environment
and make those in the future less well off.
3/5
? 1 to 4: Education does not impact on
environmental quality. Inspiration vs
environmental quality: person dependent.
Opposite: environmental quality affects
inspiration
Extent = population specific, 1/2
Some alternatives probably exist, 3/4 yes
Food Food production could negatively impact
the perception of quality; however, people
also receive a benefit from seeing corn
grow or sheep on good looking land (e.g.
minimum pugging). 3/5
Provision of food impacting on perceived
environmental quality: 4–5. Question on
sustainable food production, impact food
system on water quality
Mitigation of negatives would be changing
land management practices (1 or 5
depending on structure)
Extent 1–2
No yes
Fibre Same as food
Provision of fibre (timber) impacting on
perceived environmental quality: 4–5.
Question on sustainable timber production,
impact wood production system on water
quality
Mitigation of negatives would be changing
land management practices (1 or 5,
depending on structure)
no yes
- 94 -
ES/NCP Environmental quality: The natural and physical environment and how it impacts people
today
Does [ecosystem service] impact on
people’s (can split by sector e.g. urban,
famers, etc) [well-being domain] directly
or indirectly and what is the size of that
impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or how
many people are affected (based on
number of regions or population)?
Is there a substitute for the
[ecosystem service] service
important for [well-being
domain]?
If yes, is there a cost-effective
substitute or a similar alternative
option?
Include in
assessment*
Wildfoods We see poor environmental quality with a
loss of wildfoods (e.g. fisheries declines), but
that loss is also due to degrading
environmental quality. Probably through
biodiversity loss, or species loss 2/3
Human-related. Provision of wildfood vs
perceived env quality. impact direct and big
Extent = pop specific 1 or 2
Solve cause of biodiversity loss in
area: insecticides, pesticides, habitat
loss, climate change etc. 5
Personal behavioural change to
reduce own impact 1
yes
Freshwater Clean water provides direct benefits
through rec & drinking water
High 4–5. Need freshwater quality for
perceived env quality
Water is calming, but we associate weird
smells and/or bad look of water with
environmental degradation. We don’t want
to be around water that smells or looks
unclean, so, 5
Extent = countrywide
Alternative locations (4), filtration
tech for drinking water, watershed
management change (RC/gov)
Could implement tech/plantings to
make natural filtration process more
robust (e.g. Riparian plantings, filters
for industrial waste) but that’s
through water purification
yes
Pharmaceuticals
etc
If we take too much then it would degrade
quality for future generations 3, probably
no real impact though 1
Low 1–2. For health WB, not perceived env
quality.
Extent = population/sector specific 1 or 2
no
Fuel (renew) &
energy
Renewables: building things can impact the
perception of unspoiled land, but renewable
infrastructure could also be a benefit as we
see society utilising the environment
instead of degrading it. 3
Low 1–2. For material WB, not perceived
env. quality
From plants/animals: If we take too much
then it would degrade quality for future
generations or would impact quality
through other means (e.g. erosion control),
3
Extent = for those living near sources, 1 or 2
No
Ornamental
resources
If we take too much, then it would degrade
quality for future generations 3/5
Low 1–2. For material WB, not perceived env
quality
Extent = countrywide
Personal behavioural change 1 No
- 95 -
ES/NCP Environmental quality: The natural and physical environment and how it impacts people
today
Does [ecosystem service] impact on
people’s (can split by sector e.g. urban,
famers, etc) [well-being domain] directly
or indirectly and what is the size of that
impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or how
many people are affected (based on
number of regions or population)?
Is there a substitute for the
[ecosystem service] service
important for [well-being
domain]?
If yes, is there a cost-effective
substitute or a similar alternative
option?
Include in
assessment*
Genetic
resources
High? 4-5. Need good genet res. for
perceived env quality.
Lower genetic resources would infer a
degrading environment, but it doesn’t
necessarily impact environmental quality. 1
thinking of genetic resource as options for
resilience….maintenance of options. If you
lose genetic resources, then you may lose
future environmental quality; overlaps with
other well-beings as well. perception of loss
of biod and genetic resources and the
importance for env. quality
No Yes
Habitat creation
and maintenance
Similar to genetic resources. Direct and big.
Loss of habitat is a direct symptom of
perceived loss of env. Quality. 5
Extent: countrywide
No Yes
- 96 -
Safety and security
ES/NCP Safety and security: People’s safety and security (both real and perceived) and their
freedom from risk of harm and lack of fear
Does [ecosystem service] impact on people’s (can
split by sector, e.g. urban, famers, etc.) [well-
being domain] directly or indirectly and what is
the size of that impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or how many
people are affected (based on number of regions
or population)?
Is there a substitute for
the [ecosystem service]
service important for
[well-being domain]?
If yes, is there a cost-
effective substitute or a
similar alternative option?
Include in
assessment*
Erosion control Nature 4: Direct and small; Extent 3 or 4: relates to
the extent of coastal erosion
Coastal erosion can affect housing and people in
those areas could have safety and security concerns
Sub 1-3: depends on what
erosion trying to control but
sea walls and coastal
erosion schemes can be
cost-effectively used.
No
Natural hazard
regulation
(flood, drought,
fires, slips)
Nature 4: Direct and small. Extent 1: likely <10% of
population but covers all regions (5) (score with 50%
weightings = 2.5)
Disasters related to nature are increasing on the
forefront of people’s minds. While direct, it is likely
still affecting on a small portion of the populations
but in all regions of the country. However, these
impacts are sporadic rather than continual
Sub 1-5: this is natural
hazard and area specific,
e.g. bunds around houses
vs flood control schemes
Yes, this was
a maybe but
decided to
include due
to likely
increase in
nat hazards
Water regulation Nature 1: not important No
Air quality
regulation
Nature 1: not important No
Climate
regulation
Nature 4: Direct and small; Extent depends on where
infrastructure is and the effects of extreme events
Climate change and lack of climate regulation can
affect infrastructure and exacerbate extreme events.
These can impact on a person’s sense of security
This more of a potential future risk, e.g. sea level rise,
and of extreme events (rather than natural hazards),
e.g. wind injuries related to climate and increases in
violent crimes and assaults with temperature (NSW,
Korea, Finland, Chicago;
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/aug/02/we
atherwatch-a-heatwave-can-lead-to-a-crime-wave).
Sub 5: there is no cost-
effective substitute for
climate regulation in this
context
Yes, tracking
ES as the
impacts are
potential
Pollination Nature 1: not important No
Water
purification
Nature 2: indirect and small. Extent 1: likely <10% of
population (score with 50% weightings = 1.5)
Some concerns are around clean drinking water.
However, this relates to the ‘freshwater’ provisioning
service
Sub 1-3: situation
dependent but relates to
drinking water. See drinking
water
No
Biological control Nature 2: indirect and small. Extent 1: likely <10% of
population (score with 50% weightings = 1.5)
Potentially there are some livestock and crops
concerns but this would affect the income and
wealth well-being rather than the personal security
Sub 1: in most instances we
have chemical substitutes
for most things of concern
in NZ
No
- 97 -
ES/NCP Safety and security: People’s safety and security (both real and perceived) and their
freedom from risk of harm and lack of fear
Does [ecosystem service] impact on people’s (can
split by sector, e.g. urban, famers, etc.) [well-
being domain] directly or indirectly and what is
the size of that impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or how many
people are affected (based on number of regions
or population)?
Is there a substitute for
the [ecosystem service]
service important for
[well-being domain]?
If yes, is there a cost-
effective substitute or a
similar alternative option?
Include in
assessment*
Disease
regulation
Nature 2: indirect and small. Extent 1: likely <10% of
population (score with 50% weightings = 1.5)
Nature-based diseases affecting safety for humans in
NZ is not big
Sub 1: in most instances we
have chemical substitutes
for most things of concern
in NZ
No
Recreation and
ecotourism
Nature 1: not important No
Ethical & spiritual Nature 1: not important No
Inspirational and
educational
Nature 1: not important No
Food Nature 2: indirect and small. Extent 1: likely <10% of
population (score with 50% weightings = 1.5)
While food security is not a huge concern currently
in NZ, it may be something of a concern in the future
Sub 1: currently able to buy
food from other countries.
As as long as trade is not
disrupted and food
production in other
countries is not affected,
this is low risk
No
Fibre Nature 1: not important No
Wildfoods Nature 1: not important No
Freshwater Nature 1: not important
Freshwater (i.e. drinking water) is important for
health but not safety
No
Pharmaceuticals
etc
Nature 1: not important No
Fuel (renew) &
energy
Nature 1: not important
Does have energy security concerns; but not
personal security
No
Ornamental
resources
Nature 1: not important No
Genetic
resources
Nature 1: not important No
Habitat creation
and
maintenance
Nature 1: not important No
- 98 -
Subjective well-being
ES/NCP Subjective well-being: Overall life satisfaction and sense of meaning and self
Does [ecosystem service] impact on people’s
(can split by sector e.g. urban, famers, etc.)
[well-being domain] directly or indirectly and
what is the size of that impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or how
many people are affected (based on number
of regions or population)?
Is there a substitute for the
[ecosystem service] service
important for [well-being
domain]?
If yes, is there a cost-effective
substitute or a similar
alternative option?
Include in
assessment*
Erosion control Nature 1: not important No
Natural hazard
regulation (flood,
fires, drought,
slips)
Nature 1: not important No
Water regulation Nature 1: not important No
Air quality
regulation
2: Indirect and small: people living in areas with
air quality issues that affect health which
decreases their overall life satisfaction
Urban population more affected than rural
population
PM10 (use cardiac hospitalisations, respiratory
hospitalisations and restricted activity days – not
premature deaths)
Pollen season is 34 weeks12. Grass is major pollen
hazard from Oct to after Xmas
Depends on pollutant
Pollen – 5 (many diffuse
sources; tend to treat symptom
not the source)
PM10:
– power plants/cars 1
– fires 1
(however, the technology to
reduce pressure does not
necessarily eliminate so
cumulative impacts are a
problem)
Natural environment can
mitigate, e.g. trees in urban
areas reduce PM10 in air
Maybe
Climate
regulation
5: growing anxiety about climate crisis directly
affects life satisfaction.
All of population.
National but number per region is likely
unknown. Likely more of an issue for younger
generations.
4: while technologies to reduce
GHGs or improve climate
regulation (e.g. sequester
carbon) are available, the scale
of mitigation needed is beyond
the individual or the community
Yes
Pollination Nature 1: not important No
12 https://blog.metservice.com/pollen
- 99 -
ES/NCP Subjective well-being: Overall life satisfaction and sense of meaning and self
Does [ecosystem service] impact on people’s
(can split by sector e.g. urban, famers, etc.)
[well-being domain] directly or indirectly and
what is the size of that impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or how
many people are affected (based on number
of regions or population)?
Is there a substitute for the
[ecosystem service] service
important for [well-being
domain]?
If yes, is there a cost-effective
substitute or a similar
alternative option?
Include in
assessment*
Water
purification
3: indirect and big. Manifests through inability to
recreate in water ways (seasonal effect) and
through clean drinking water (year-round)
Likely effects urban populations in terms of
drinking water as rural population has own water
supply (often rainwater). Some exceptions when
drinking water comes from groundwater
Regions/rivers/beaches affected for recreation:
Manawatu
Waikato
Many HB rivers
Te Waihora
Drinking water: most of country uses treated
water. Regions where not all municipal water is
treated are in areas of Hawke’s Bay & Canterbury
4: water treatment plants for
drinking water
5: cleaning water for recreation
purposes is not affordable.
However, people may have
substitute areas to recreate
Maybe
Biological control Nature: indirect and small (2). The sense of
subjective well-being is remotely linked to the
capacity of ecosystem to regulate disease
No
Disease
regulation
Nature: indirect and small (2). The sense of
subjective well-being is remotely linked to the
capacity of ecosystem to regulate disease
No
Recreation and
ecotourism
5: directly affects life satisfaction
All of NZ population
5: While many recreational
substitutes are available (e.g.
gym), these substitutes are not
likely to provide the same
experience or level of
satisfaction as nature-based
recreation
Maybe
Ethical & spiritual 5: directly affects life satisfaction
All of NZ population
5: there is no technological
substitute for the sense of place
that a person feels for an area.
Yes
Inspirational and
educational
2: Indirect for those people whose jobs (which
would contribute to life satisfaction) depends on
nature for innovation.
Only affects those who design technology or use
nature
No
Food 2: Indirect and large: all people’s life satisfaction
would be indirectly affected by poor food
provision
All of NZ population
1: Food can be imported Yes
- 100 -
ES/NCP Subjective well-being: Overall life satisfaction and sense of meaning and self
Does [ecosystem service] impact on people’s
(can split by sector e.g. urban, famers, etc.)
[well-being domain] directly or indirectly and
what is the size of that impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or how
many people are affected (based on number
of regions or population)?
Is there a substitute for the
[ecosystem service] service
important for [well-being
domain]?
If yes, is there a cost-effective
substitute or a similar
alternative option?
Include in
assessment*
Fibre 2: Indirect and small: people who jobs rely on
timber/wool or directly consume timber/wool will
be affected as lack of access to these goods
could affect sense of self-worth or provide
frustration when product is no longer available
Portion of NZ population working in respective
industries or consuming these goods
1: Fibre (timber, wool) can be
imported or other materials
(e.g. brick) used
No
Wildfoods 1: indirect and small. Affect people that are
hunting or fishing
No
Drinking water 2: Indirect and large: Manifests through lack of
available clean drinking water (year-round)
Likely effects urban populations in terms of
drinking water as rural population has own water
supply (often rainwater). Some exceptions when
drinking water comes from groundwater.
Drinking water: most of country uses treated
water. Regions where not all municipal water is
treated is in areas of Hawke’s Bay & Canterbury
Areas where water shortages are an issue may
also start experiencing problems
4: Dams and water storage.
Purchase of water from other
countries could also be option
Maybe
Pharmaceuticals
etc
Nature 1: not important No
Fuel (renew) 2: Indirect and small: people who jobs rely on
renewable fuels or directly consume renewable
fuels will be affected as lack of access to these
goods could affect sense of self-worth or provide
frustration when product is no longer available
If a person has switched to these goods for
sustainability reasons, then this will directly affect
life satisfaction
1: petroleum products No
Ornamental
resources
Nature 1: not important No
Genetic
resources
2: Indirect and small: people who jobs rely on
genetic resources will be affected and therefore
impact on life satisfaction
Those whose jobs use genetic resources
Unknown. No
Habitat 4: knowing that habitats exist may directly affect
life satisfaction and the sense of peace a person
has. Likely smaller compared with other aspects
that affect life satisfaction
5: there is no technical
substitute for habitat and the
role it plays with people life
satisfaction
Yes
- 101 -
Cultural identity
ES/NCP Cultural identity: Having a strong sense of identity, belonging and ability to be oneself,
and the existence value of cultural taonga
Does [ecosystem service] impact on people’s
(can split by sector, e.g. urban, famers, etc.)
[well-being domain] directly or indirectly and
what is the size of that impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or how
many people are affected (based on number
of regions or population)?
Is there a substitute for the
[ecosystem service] service
important for [well-being
domain]?
If yes, is it a cost-effective
substitute or a similar
alternative option?
Include in
assessment*
Erosion control Nature 2: indirect and small. Extent 1: likely <10%
of population (score with 50% weightings = 1.5)
There could be some impacts based on how soil
erosion may affect a person’s sense of place
Sub 1: many individuals can do
something about erosion
control cost-effectively.
This could be looked in two
ways: does the ability to control
erosion (e.g. by planting trees,
bunds, etc.) mean there is a
cost-effective substitute that
will fix the area and hence
improve cultural identity; OR
does the lack of erosion control
mean cultural identity in one
special place is lost. If cultural
identity was to place not what a
place looked like, then a
damaged place still holds
cultural identity and sense of
place, but a person may not be
happy about it. Technical
substitutes relate to the first
approach and are there ways to
control erosion that would
preserve cultural identify/ This
would be yes (noting that slips
are natural hazards).
No
Natural hazard
regulation
(flood, drought,
fires, slips)
Nature 4: indirect and small. Extent 1: likely <10%
of population (score with 50% weightings = 3)
There could be some impacts based on how
natural hazards may affect a person’s sense of
place, e.g. impact of natural hazards on culturally
sensitive areas like a pa, cemetery/urupā, or
Māori archaeology
Sub 1-5: this is natural hazard
and area specific, e.g. bunds
around houses vs flood control
schemes
Yes,
(particularly
Māori)
It is a maybe
depending
on context.
Decided to
include as a
second tier
ES
Water regulation Nature 4: Direct and small. Extent 1: likely <10%
of population (score with 50% weightings = 2.5)
There could be some impacts based on how low
or high flows may affect a person’s sense of
place. For Māori, the maui of the water can be
affected, which is important for cultural identity
Sub 1-5: there is likely other
places with stream flows that
may provide similar senses of
identify or
technologies/solutions like
augmented flows
Yes
(particularly
Māori)
decided to
include back
on maui of
the water
consideration
- 102 -
ES/NCP Cultural identity: Having a strong sense of identity, belonging and ability to be oneself,
and the existence value of cultural taonga
Does [ecosystem service] impact on people’s
(can split by sector, e.g. urban, famers, etc.)
[well-being domain] directly or indirectly and
what is the size of that impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or how
many people are affected (based on number
of regions or population)?
Is there a substitute for the
[ecosystem service] service
important for [well-being
domain]?
If yes, is it a cost-effective
substitute or a similar
alternative option?
Include in
assessment*
Air quality
regulation
Nature 4: Direct and small. Extent 1: likely <10%
of population (score with 50% weightings = 2.5)
The smell of a place is often important for
identify. Thus, having clean, unpolluted airs is
important
Sub 5: no real
substitutes/alternatives for
good air quality
Yes (All
NZers)
Climate
regulation
Nature 4: Direct and small (but potential). Extent
1: likely <10% of population (score with 50%
weightings = 2.5)
Cultural heritage may be affected by climate and
therefore the resilience of these sites (which are
important for cultural heritage) is important. May
also be some changes to traditional and cultural
activities (e.g. celebrations or activities in certain
times and places that may no longer be possible
due to changes in local or global climate)
Sub: no real cost-effective
substitute/alternative
Yes
(particularly
Māori)
Pollination Nature 3: Indirect and small. Extent 1: likely <10%
of population (score with 50% weightings = 2)
Pollination can indirectly impact on cultural
identity where the loss of pollinators may mean
certain species (important for indigenous people)
don’t flower or no longer exist
Sub 1 – 5: Depends on what
species are affected by the loss
of this service. Some species
may have many alternative
pollinators while others may
not
No (concern
is covered via
habitat
creation)
Water
purification
Nature 3 or 4: indirect and big/direct small.
Extent 3: 30–50% of population affected (score
with 50% weightings = 3)
There could be some impacts based on how
water quality may affect a person’s sense of
place. For instance, algal growth may negatively
affect a person’s sense of place. Other affect
could be indirect through ability to swim. Ability
to swim in natural places is important for many
New Zealanders
Sub 1-5: there are likely other
places with water quality that
provide similar senses of
identify. Score will depend on
the place in question and the
cultural significance it may hold
(is it to the place or the activity
at that place?)
Maybe,
Perhaps tier 3
indicator if
this well-
being (issue
picked up in
other WBs)
Biological control Nature 1: not important No
Disease
regulation
Nature 1: not important No
Recreation and
ecotourism
Nature 4: Direct and small. Extent 3: likely at least
30–50% of population (score with 50%
weightings = 3.5)
Part of many NZers identity is to be able to
walk/tramp/fish/hunt. Thus, impacts that change
recreational opportunities may affect a person’s
identify, e.g. ability to walk in a specific forest or
undertake a specific type of activity (e.g. hunting)
Sub 2-4: is location dependent
on whether other alternative
options are available nearby
Yes (all
NZers)
- 103 -
ES/NCP Cultural identity: Having a strong sense of identity, belonging and ability to be oneself,
and the existence value of cultural taonga
Does [ecosystem service] impact on people’s
(can split by sector, e.g. urban, famers, etc.)
[well-being domain] directly or indirectly and
what is the size of that impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or how
many people are affected (based on number
of regions or population)?
Is there a substitute for the
[ecosystem service] service
important for [well-being
domain]?
If yes, is it a cost-effective
substitute or a similar
alternative option?
Include in
assessment*
Ethical & spiritual Nature 5: Direct and big. Extent 2: likely at lease
10-30% of population (conservative) (score with
50% weightings = 3.5)
Ethical and spiritual services directly underpin
cultural identity for many people
Sub 5: location is tied to the
sense of identify (including
ecological quality of that
location)
Yes (all
NZers)
Inspirational and
educational
Nature 5: Direct and small. Extent 1: likely <10%
of population (score with 50% weightings = 3)
Māori, in particular, may rely on using nature as
an educational avenue to build the cultural
identify of their youth (or reconnection of older
generations)
For Māori …..Sub 5: there would
be no substitutes for loss of
certain parts of their rohe
[we should acknowledge that
this has already been lost in
some areas and this has been
noted as an issue (e.g. through
Treaty Settlements). So further
losses will be felt even more]
Yes
Food Nature 3: indirect and big. Extent 2: likely 10–30%
of population (score with 50% weightings = 2.5)
Farmers have a strong sense of identify and
connect to others who provide the food for the
nation. Many are owners of the land, so the
connection is stronger
Sub 2 or 3: As long as farmland
of similar quality is available
then this well-being could be
provided by other areas
Yes (all
NZers)
Fibre Nature 3: indirect and big. Extent 2: likely 10–30%
of population (score with 50% weightings = 2.5)
Farmers (wool)/foresters (timber) have a strong
sense of identify and connect to others who
provide the food for the nation. Many farmers are
owners of the land, so the connection is stronger.
Māori forester owners may have similar
connections to the land.
Sub 2 or 3: As long as
farm/forest land of similar
quality is available then this
well-being could be provided
by other areas
Yes (all
NZers)
Wildfoods Nature 4: Direct and small. Extent 2: likely 10–
30% of population (score with 50% weightings =
3)
Māori, in particular, may rely on wildfoods to
underpin their identify. Each iwi have specific
taonga and their sense of reciprocity relates to
the ability to feed guests wildfoods from their
taonga. Hunters/fishers may also tie their cultural
identify to wildfood harvest
For Māori ….Sub 5: while the
often now purchase food from
grocery store for marae
activities they always note that
they don’t have wildfoods left
in the rohe to harvest
Yes (all
NZers)
Freshwater Nature 1: not important
Drinking freshwater in rivers, provision of
freshwater for recreation, can be part of cultural
identity but this is indirect
No
- 104 -
ES/NCP Cultural identity: Having a strong sense of identity, belonging and ability to be oneself,
and the existence value of cultural taonga
Does [ecosystem service] impact on people’s
(can split by sector, e.g. urban, famers, etc.)
[well-being domain] directly or indirectly and
what is the size of that impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or how
many people are affected (based on number
of regions or population)?
Is there a substitute for the
[ecosystem service] service
important for [well-being
domain]?
If yes, is it a cost-effective
substitute or a similar
alternative option?
Include in
assessment*
Pharmaceuticals
etc
Nature 4: Direct and small. Extent 1: likely <10%
of population (score with 50% weightings = 2.5)
Māori, for example, may have their cultural
identity tied to being able to use Rongoa
Sub 1-5: depends as could be
other alternatives available for
native medicines
Maybe,
perhaps a
second tier
indicator
Fuel (renew) &
energy
Nature 1: not important
Some species, e.g. manuka, may be important for
smoking foods and relates to cultural identity.
This would be indirect.
No
Ornamental
resources
Nature 4: Direct and small. Extent 1: likely <10%
of population (score with 50% weightings = 2.5)
Māori, in particular, may rely on ornamental
resources to honour people or as a sign of
seniority, e.g. greenstone (pounamu) may be
given as a gift of gratitude to someone who has
helped you or to a family member. Kiwi
feather cloaks (Kahu kiwi) were made to
represent prestige and mana (status and
authority). Flax weaving is an important cultural
tradition
For Māori ….Sub 3-5: in some
instance a resource could be
found a distance away (e.g.
greenstone) while in other
cases it may no longer be
available (e.g. huia feathers as
species is now extinct)
Yes
(particularly
Māori)
Genetic
resources
Nature 4: Direct and small. Extent 4: likely 50–
75% of population (score with 50% weightings
= 4)
Cultural identity could be tied to the genetic
diversity of NZers’ natural environment and the
importance of taonga species for all Nzers
Sub 4: likely few substitutes for
loss of genetic resources
Yes
(particularly
Māori)
Habitat creation
and
maintenance
Nature 4: Direct and small. Extent 4: likely
50–75% of population (score with 50%
weightings = 4)
Cultural identity tied to the native habitat
diversity of NZers’ natural environment and the
importance of taonga species for all Nzers
Yes
- 105 -
Income and wealth
ES/NCP Income and wealth (income and consumption is terms in the LSF doc): People’s
disposable income from all sources, how much people spend and the material
possessions they have.
Does [ecosystem service] impact on
people’s (can split by sector e.g. urban,
famers, etc) [well-being domain]
directly or indirectly and what is the
size of that impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or
how many people are affected (based
on number of regions or population)?
Is there a substitute
for the [ecosystem
service] service
important for [well-
being domain]?
If yes, is there a
cost-effective
substitute or a
similar alternative
option?
Include in assessment*
Erosion control Farmers: income depends on the land
(lose unstable land, spend more on
reinforcing land) -indirect as through
other ES like Food production
Landowners: lose unstable land, spend
more on reinforcing land, danger to
infrastructure – indirect as through
infrastructure/housing
Urban, nonlandowners: no impact
Nature: 1 to 2 Region, population and
geography specific (could be <10–30%)
Extent: 1 to 2
Cost-effective control
of erosion exists
Control would be at
an individual scale
Sub: 1
No
Natural hazard
regulation
(flood,
drought, fires,
slips)
Impact is through how natural hazards
impact on income generation or the
value of property/resources owned.
For example, droughts reduce
agricultural production which affects
income generation (indirect in this case)
Floods though directly affect
infrastructure which directly affects
wealth. In all instances, the impact is
sporadic rather than continual.
Directly impact property (material goods),
land values (wealth), and indirectly
someone’s job or place of work.
Nature (current): 3, 4, or 5
Potential impact: The incidence of some
natural hazards may increase with climate
change. Different natural hazards impact
different parts of the country, however it
would impact the income of a small
proportion at any given time
Extent: 2
Flood schemes
(private (2) and
sometimes public (3))
but cost to mitigate
would be smaller than
income loss
For example,
farm/household water
storage is affordable
for private individual
(1). Flood control
schemes, however,
require RC or central
govt investment (4).
Some require public
investment to fix after
the event (3/4)
Sub: 1 to 5
depending on the size
and frequency of the
natural hazard being
mitigated.
Maybe. Second tier:
Potential as the
magnitude of impact
could increase over
time due to extreme
events (similar to
Personal Security).
Places like Hawke’s Bay
are saying that drought
is having a larger
impact on income/jobs
than does Covid.
- 106 -
ES/NCP Income and wealth (income and consumption is terms in the LSF doc): People’s
disposable income from all sources, how much people spend and the material
possessions they have.
Does [ecosystem service] impact on
people’s (can split by sector e.g. urban,
famers, etc) [well-being domain]
directly or indirectly and what is the
size of that impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or
how many people are affected (based
on number of regions or population)?
Is there a substitute
for the [ecosystem
service] service
important for [well-
being domain]?
If yes, is there a
cost-effective
substitute or a
similar alternative
option?
Include in assessment*
Water
regulation
Farmers: drought or change in water
flows indirectly impact income through
Food production or through Nat hazard
regulation. Drainage and pugging issues
indirect through Food production
Nature: 2 Extent: 1 local issue
Cost-effective ways to
regulate water (e.g.
weirs, diversion
channels) and
alternative water
sources exists
Some projects may
require PC or central
to pay for (eg dams),
however through
natural hazard
Sub: 1 or 2
No
Air quality Indirect through Health WB
Nature: 1 to 2
Mitigation works
indoors and is of
different quality
Sub: 4
No
Climate
regulation
Indirect through nat. haz regulation or
indirect and small because someone
would spend more on mitigation of temp
issues
Nature: 2 Extent: 1 likely impacts a small
proportion of population
Personal tech
mitigation 1
Mitigation would
work indoors and
only to a point 4
Sub 1-5 depending
on what is needed to
regulate effects of
climate (e.g.
greenhouses,
irrigation) or not
possible (growing
grains in greenhouses
is prohibitively
expensive)
Maybe. Potential as the
magnitude of impact
could increase over
time due to extreme
events (similar to
Personal Security).
Places like Hawkes Bay
are saying that drought
is having a larger
impact on income/jobs
than Covid. Tracking
indicator. How climate
would impact
infrastructure (e.g.
melting roads with
higher heat)?
Pollination Impact is indirect as it would be impact of
pollination services on food and fibre
production
Nature: 2
Extent = local issue probably 1
Personal tech
mitigation 1
Sub 1: can use
artificial pollination
approaches or
managed pollinators
like bees
No
- 107 -
ES/NCP Income and wealth (income and consumption is terms in the LSF doc): People’s
disposable income from all sources, how much people spend and the material
possessions they have.
Does [ecosystem service] impact on
people’s (can split by sector e.g. urban,
famers, etc) [well-being domain]
directly or indirectly and what is the
size of that impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or
how many people are affected (based
on number of regions or population)?
Is there a substitute
for the [ecosystem
service] service
important for [well-
being domain]?
If yes, is there a
cost-effective
substitute or a
similar alternative
option?
Include in assessment*
Water
purification
Impact is indirect as it would be impact of
poor water quality on food production or
spending on infrastructure (e.g. water
treatment facilities)
Nature: 2
Extent = local 1
Cost-effective ways to
purify water exists
(e.g. water treatment
plants or technology).
Cost depends on
scale.
Mitigation would also
be potentially of
different quality
Sub 1-3
No
Biological
control
Farmers: spend more money on pest
control, medication, treatment and
prevention for diseases. Direct and
potentially large 5
Landowners: pest management costs.
Direct, most likely small (could be large
for some) 4
Impact is indirect as it would be impact
of biological control on food and fibre
production
Everyone else: Disease regulation
through health, so indirect 2
Nature: most likely a 2 or 3 Extent: 1 local
impacts
Private costs, some are
cost effective 1
Pest management
alternatives available,
but expensive and of
different quality
(potentially) 2 or 3
Sub: 1-3
Maybe, while farmers/
landowners can spend
individually, collectively
it is very expensive and
may require RC/central
to make control cost
effective
Disease
regulation
Nature: indirect and small (2). Income
would be through sick leave
No
Recreation and
ecotourism
Those in industry are impacted, but
through their jobs and earnings. 3
People may have to spend more to go
somewhere else for tourism or rec
activities. Direct and potentially large
because NZ is an outdoor culture 5
Eco-tourism is a direct contributor to the
income and wealth of individuals and
regions
Nature 3 or 5: Direct and small/big.
Extent 1 to 2: likely affects <10% of
NZers’ income and wealth at any given
time, could be larger as tourism type is
country-wide industry
Sub 1-4: other forms
of income could be
generated but they
could be quite
different forms of
wealth generation
Yes
Ethical &
spiritual
No relevant 1
Nature 1: not important
No
- 108 -
ES/NCP Income and wealth (income and consumption is terms in the LSF doc): People’s
disposable income from all sources, how much people spend and the material
possessions they have.
Does [ecosystem service] impact on
people’s (can split by sector e.g. urban,
famers, etc) [well-being domain]
directly or indirectly and what is the
size of that impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or
how many people are affected (based
on number of regions or population)?
Is there a substitute
for the [ecosystem
service] service
important for [well-
being domain]?
If yes, is there a
cost-effective
substitute or a
similar alternative
option?
Include in assessment*
Inspirational and
educational
Scientists/researchers: indirect or direct
depending on field. if indirect then small,
if direct then large. But through jobs and
earnings. 2
Artists: direct or indirect depending on
style. if indirect then small, if direct then
large. But through job and earnings. 2
Impact is through how nature inspires
ideas which then create wealth or
educational opportunities that create
income (this is income as opposed to
skills). Examples are outdoor education
operators. This latter example is more
direct.
Nature: 2 or 3 Extent: small proportion of
population 1
Sub 1: alternatives
exist either in nature
or via other media
(e.g. literature)
No
Food Primary industries: livelihood is
dependent on food provision, a
degrading ES would mean less income
and wealth 4
Restaurants: indirect through earnings
and stability of income 3
Others: cost, quality and availability of
food 2
Nature: 4 to 5
Extent 3: likely affects 30–50% of NZers’
income and wealth [note: this is New
Zealanders not New Zealand]
Substitute other types
of food, crops but
could be of different
quality, e.g. import of
food
Sub 1 – 3: Could
generate
wealth/income in
other ways. However,
this may involve
substantial
investment or re-
training
Yes
Fibre Primary industries through earnings 3
Others: cost, quality, and availability of
products. Direct, small 4
Fibre production generates incomes
both directly and indirectly. It is direct for
foresters and mill owners and indirect for
retail or builders, etc.
Nature: 4 to 5
Extent 3: likely affects 30–50% of NZers’
income and wealth [note: this is New
Zealanders not New Zealand]
Substitute other types
of food, crops
Sub 1 – 3: Could
generate
wealth/income in
other ways. However,
this may involve
substantial
investment or re-
training
Yes
- 109 -
ES/NCP Income and wealth (income and consumption is terms in the LSF doc): People’s
disposable income from all sources, how much people spend and the material
possessions they have.
Does [ecosystem service] impact on
people’s (can split by sector e.g. urban,
famers, etc) [well-being domain]
directly or indirectly and what is the
size of that impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or
how many people are affected (based
on number of regions or population)?
Is there a substitute
for the [ecosystem
service] service
important for [well-
being domain]?
If yes, is there a
cost-effective
substitute or a
similar alternative
option?
Include in assessment*
Wildfoods Māori & other groups reliant on foraging:
direct and large 5
Others: not important 1
Note, that commercial fishing etc of wild
species is captured under food above
Nature: 1 (or 5) Extent: 1 population
specific,
Farming of goods, so
some alternatives 1 or
2
No substitute for
some goods though
(impacts through
other well-beings)
Sub: 1 or 2 (or
possibly 5 for some
groups)
No
Freshwater Indirect through Health WB 2
Spend more on cleaning, filtering, and
alternatives. Direct & large 5
Impact is on the availability of clean
stock water where the stock provide
income.
Nature: 2 (possibly 5) Extent: local 1
Many cost-effective
solutions for filtering
water available
Sub: 1 to 3
No
Pharmaceuticals
etc
Farmers: indirect through food provision
2
Māori & other who use natural medicine:
indirect 2
Extent: small proportion of population
Some alternatives,
potentially of
different quality or a
distance away
Some natural
medicines don’t have
alternatives
Sub: 1 to 3
Maybe because of the
growing industry of
natural medicines (e.g.
mānuka honey for
antibacterial).
Risk/exposure
framework. Thinking
about this from a
potential perspective.
Rongoa (traditional
medicines) is a growing
industry providing
income and wealth in
NZ
- 110 -
ES/NCP Income and wealth (income and consumption is terms in the LSF doc): People’s
disposable income from all sources, how much people spend and the material
possessions they have.
Does [ecosystem service] impact on
people’s (can split by sector e.g. urban,
famers, etc) [well-being domain]
directly or indirectly and what is the
size of that impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or
how many people are affected (based
on number of regions or population)?
Is there a substitute
for the [ecosystem
service] service
important for [well-
being domain]?
If yes, is there a
cost-effective
substitute or a
similar alternative
option?
Include in assessment*
Fuel (renew) &
energy
Direct and large because we need fuel of
some sort
Renewable energy production generates
incomes both directly and indirectly. It is
direct for workers in the industry and
indirect for companies who need energy
to run their business (i.e. All orgs).
Nature 5: Direct and cumulatively big
Extent 5: likely affects most NZers’
income and wealth directly or indirect.
Direct extent is likely <10% of NZers
[note: this is New Zealanders not New
Zealand]
Alternative fuel
sources, renewables.
Expensive for some
industries and people
to transition.
Sub 3-4: central
government would
need to support
alternatives.
Interconnected grid
means can move
electricity around
Maybe.
Policy/regulation
changes could impact
infrastructure choice.
There are currently
cost-effective
substitutes for non-
renewables but the
policy direction has
made some (e.g.
nuclear) alternatives not
available. If we change
the available substitutes
at policy changes then
it becomes a yes
Ornamental
resources
Ornamental resources are used in
jewellery making and handicrafts. Indirect
through jobs and earnings 1 or 2
Nature 2: Direct and small. Extent 1: likely
affects <10% of NZers’ income and
wealth [note: this is New Zealanders not
New Zealand]
Sub 1: alternative
sources could be
found and typically at
low cost
No
Genetic
resources
Direct impact on primary industries
through food and fibre production. 2
Potentially large if genetic diversity
decreased causing health and quality
issues in products. But through earnings
2
Nature 2: Indirect and small. Extent 1:
likely affects <10% of NZers’ income and
wealth
Import diversity if not
found locally
Sub 1: could bring
genetic resources
from other places or
do gene manipulation
[acknowledge GM is
tricky in NZ]
No
Habitat
creation and
maintenance
Direct and small (4) via Jobs for Nature.
The government has invested $1.1 billion
to support 11,000 job creation within the
DOC estate to maintain native
vegetation13
Maybe as we are in
exceptional times for
post-Covid economic
recovery
13 https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2020-06/b20-cab-20-sub-0219-4283397.pdf and
https://www.doc.govt.nz/news/media-releases/2020-media-releases/investment-to-create-11000-environment-
jobs-in-our-regions/#:~:text=David%20Parker%20said.-
,Jobs%20for%20Nature%20programme,assets%20on%20public%20conservation%20land.
- 111 -
Jobs and earnings
ES/NCP The quality of people’s jobs (including monetary compensation) and work
environment, people’s ease and inclusiveness of finding suitable employment, and
their job stability and freedom from unemployment
Does [ecosystem service] impact on
people’s (can split by sector, e.g.
urban, famers, etc.) [well-being
domain] directly or indirectly and
what is the size of that impact
(small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or
how many people are affected (based
on number of regions or population)?
Is there a substitute for the
[ecosystem service] service
important for [well-being
domain]?
If yes, is there a cost-effective
substitute or a similar
alternative option?
Include in
assessment*
Erosion control Indirect and small. Erosion impacting on
productive land, thus reducing
proportion of earnings (1-2)
Yes, moving stock, change in
land use. 1
No
Natural hazard
regulation
Indirect and small. Risk of nat hazards
impacting on earnings (2)
Potentially someone’s job or place of
work is lost or they have to move. 5
Extent = whole country is vulnerable to
come natural hazard 5
Flood schemes (private and
sometimes public 2/3) Public to
fix after the fact 3 or 4
maybe
Water
regulation
Direct and small (4) via availability of
water for irrigation to increase earnings
Yes, dams. 1 No
Air quality Arguably bad air quality influences work
environment (office swelling) 4
Important for quality of job (outdoor
jobs), would reach small portion of
population sensitive to air quality (so
indirect via health) 2
Indirect by improving health
through filtration, emissions
reductions (1 or 3)
Mitigation only works for
indoors and of different quality,
or you move (4)
No
Climate
regulation
Similar to air quality.
Spend more money on temperature
regulation, cloths or items to stay
dry/keep cool etc. too hot or too cold
negatively impacts work environment
4/5
Indirect and small (2). CC could affect
jobs opportunities. Shift in land use.
Indirect through natural hazard
regulation1 or 2
Extent = country wide 5
Personal tech mitigation 1
Company mitigation 2
Mitigation works to a point and
inside
No
Pollination Indirect and small (2). Would affect jobs
in pollination services (beekeeping)
Subst via artificial pollination 1-2 No
Water
purification
Indirect and small (2). Can’t see any
direct relationship with jobs, would be
through health issues
Subst water treatment plants 1-2 no
Biological
control
Indirect and small (2). Possibly through
pest control jobs?
No
Disease
regulation
Indirect and small (2). Can’t see any
direct relationship with jobs, would be
through health issues
No
- 112 -
ES/NCP The quality of people’s jobs (including monetary compensation) and work
environment, people’s ease and inclusiveness of finding suitable employment, and
their job stability and freedom from unemployment
Does [ecosystem service] impact on
people’s (can split by sector, e.g.
urban, famers, etc.) [well-being
domain] directly or indirectly and
what is the size of that impact
(small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or
how many people are affected (based
on number of regions or population)?
Is there a substitute for the
[ecosystem service] service
important for [well-being
domain]?
If yes, is there a cost-effective
substitute or a similar
alternative option?
Include in
assessment*
Recreation and
ecotourism
Those in industry: direct and large 5
Yes, provision of tourism opportunities
creates jobs and earnings (5)
Extent = hit some regions harder, but
most of the country 5
Some alternatives and
potentially a distance away and
some may have no alternatives
Subst to some extent, VR etc.
Not same experience (4)
yes
Ethical &
spiritual
No relevant 1
Indirect and small (2). Can’t see any
direct relationship with jobs, would be
through mental health issues
No
Inspirational
and educational
Scientists/researchers: indirect or direct
depending on field. if indirect then
small, if direct then large. 2/5
Direct and small (4). Jobs for artists.
Artists: direct or indirect depending on
style. if indirect then small, if direct then
large. 2/5
Extent = small proportion of pop
Some alternatives and
potentially a distance away and
some may have no alternatives ()
VR learning
Subst: artists may find other
sources of inspiration 2
Maybe
Food Primary industries: direct and large 5
Yes, provision of food through our land
resources provides jobs in primary
industry (5)
Extent = country 5
Substitute other types of food,
crops, GMOSs
yes
Fibre Primary industries: direct and large 5
Yes, provision of fibre through our land
resources/timber production provides
jobs in primary industry (5)
Extent = country 5
Substitute other types of food,
crops
GMOs
yes
Wildfoods Primary industries: direct and large 5
Indirect and small (2). Can’t see any
direct relationship with jobs, would be
through work-life balance
Extent = population specific,
possum fur, hunting service companies
Farming of goods instead of
relying on ecosystem No
substitute for some goods
though (impacts through other
well-beings)
No
Freshwater Yes, provision of freshwater through our
land resources provides jobs in primary
industry (5)
yes
- 113 -
ES/NCP The quality of people’s jobs (including monetary compensation) and work
environment, people’s ease and inclusiveness of finding suitable employment, and
their job stability and freedom from unemployment
Does [ecosystem service] impact on
people’s (can split by sector, e.g.
urban, famers, etc.) [well-being
domain] directly or indirectly and
what is the size of that impact
(small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or
how many people are affected (based
on number of regions or population)?
Is there a substitute for the
[ecosystem service] service
important for [well-being
domain]?
If yes, is there a cost-effective
substitute or a similar
alternative option?
Include in
assessment*
Pharmaceuticals
etc
Still small? Unknown level of
pharmaceuticals potential for job
creation. (2)
Farmers: fertiliser, have to buy. Direct
and potentially large
Pharma industry: direct and large 5
Extent = small
Some alternatives
No alternatives for some natural
medicines
No
Fuel (renew) &
energy
Wind power. Creating jobs (4) Subst. not only
wind/hydropower 2
No
Ornamental
resources
Direct if artist or income dependent
(4/5)
Jobs in selling pounamu jewellery (4)
Extent = local, small
Alternatives 1, maybe none for
some goods
Subst. other ornamentals. Not
the same 2
maybe
Genetic
resources
Direct impact on primary industries.
Potentially large if genetic diversity
decreased causing health and quality
issues in products (4/5)
For future potential (mānuka honey
DNA) (2)
Extent = local
Import diversity if not found
locally
No
Habitat creation
and
maintenance
Exceptional circumstances: Jobs for
nature….
Otherwise probably indirect and small
Maybe
- 114 -
Housing
ES/NCP Housing: The quality, suitability, and affordability of the homes we live in.
Does [ecosystem service] impact on
people’s (can split by sector, e.g.
urban, famers, etc.) [well-being
domain] directly or indirectly and what
is the size of that impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or
how many people are affected (based
on number of regions or population)?
Is there a substitute for the
[ecosystem service] service
important for [well-being
domain]?
If yes, is there a cost-
effective substitute or a
similar alternative option?
Include in
assessment*
Erosion control Directly impact land values, the
stability/safety of the house or buildings
(e.g. susceptibility to slips, slow
movement of land). Large impact on
quality, suitability and potentially
affordability (expensive to fix or insure)
Yes, erosion control helps quality of
housing on hills. But potentially indirect
as through Nat haz reg
Nature: 3 or 4 Extent = countrywide issue
Infrastructure, individual or
user groups (1/2) RC/gov if
large enough area (3), but
still relatively cost effective
Sub: 1-3
No
Natural hazard
regulation
(flood,
drought, fires,
slips)
Directly impact and large
Yes, nat haz reg helps quality, suitability
of housing.
Nature: Direct and small to big (coastal
houses, where people live). 4
Extent = different hazards in different
places, but countrywide 5
Flood schemes (private and
sometimes public 2/3) Public
to fix after the fact 3 or 4
Yes
Water
regulation
Flooding risk: direct impact in suitability
and affordability, but indirect and small
(2) (housing in flood plains.) Through nat
haz regulation.
Water runoff, drainage of water away
from house: direct impact in suitability
and affordability 4
Nature: 4 Extent = localised issue 1
Private infrastructure
Sub: 1 or 2
No
Air quality Good surrounding air quality is an
amenity for housing prices: direct impact
in affordability, but it is more of a signal
of overall healthiness of home. Indirect
and large 3
Probably higher price houses where air
quality is good, regulated by surrounding
vegetation 3
Poor internal air quality (e.g. mould) leads
to poorer health: direct impact on
suitability but through health 2
Housing close to highways – noise and
particulates; mould affects housing which
affects quality of housing 4
Nature: 3 or 4 Extent = urban areas,
potentially agricultural areas during crop
harvest, homes near roads, high pollen
areas
Private costs through
filtration, emissions
reductions 1
Mitigation only works for
indoors and of different
quality, or you move (4)
Sub: 1 to 4
Yes
- 115 -
ES/NCP Housing: The quality, suitability, and affordability of the homes we live in.
Does [ecosystem service] impact on
people’s (can split by sector, e.g.
urban, famers, etc.) [well-being
domain] directly or indirectly and what
is the size of that impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or
how many people are affected (based
on number of regions or population)?
Is there a substitute for the
[ecosystem service] service
important for [well-being
domain]?
If yes, is there a cost-
effective substitute or a
similar alternative option?
Include in
assessment*
Climate
regulation
Houses not built for the climate
deteriorate or require ore maintenance
which impacts suitability and costs. 4
Climate change impacts, e.g. sea level rise
directly impacts homes, but that
mechanism is through natural disaster
regulation so indirect, 2
Nature: 2 or 4 Extent: localised but
probably impacting <50% of population
2 or 3
Personal tech mitigation 1
Sub: 1
No
Pollination No impact 1
Not important for affordable housing (1)
No
Water
purification
A house dependent on its own well would
be negatively impacted, but through
freshwater availability. Indirect.
Nature: 1 or 2 Extent: personal, 1
Indirect by improving health
through filtration, reduce
cause (1 or 3 or 4 if need
central to manage cause)
you reduce health costs but
increase other costs
Sub: water tanks, drinking
water treatment systems 1
No
Biological
control/
disease
regulation
Pests are annoying and potentially a
health & safety issue (e.g. rats) indirectly
2
Nature: 1 or 2 Extent = local, 1
Private costs, group costs
and potentially RC or central
costs to mitigate personal
loss
Termites/borers affect
housing stock, cost-effective
substitutes. More reliant on
treatments than on
biological control. More of
an issue for older homes
where the timbers were not
treated
Sub: 1
No
Recreation and
ecotourism
Through jobs and income impact housing
prices 3
Affordability of housing depends on
proximity to recreational areas (more land
value) (4–5).
Nature: Direct and small (big, all
population)
Extent = to a different degree through
the country, impacts <30% of country 2
Some alternatives and
potentially a distance away
and some may have no
alternatives ()
Other recreational activities.
Not the same experience.
People could move to places
with similar but different rec
options that reduce housing
cost
Sub: 1–3
Yes, will fall out
as a maybe in
terms of scoring
- 116 -
ES/NCP Housing: The quality, suitability, and affordability of the homes we live in.
Does [ecosystem service] impact on
people’s (can split by sector, e.g.
urban, famers, etc.) [well-being
domain] directly or indirectly and what
is the size of that impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or
how many people are affected (based
on number of regions or population)?
Is there a substitute for the
[ecosystem service] service
important for [well-being
domain]?
If yes, is there a cost-
effective substitute or a
similar alternative option?
Include in
assessment*
Ethical &
spiritual
The suitability of a house could be
dependent on the spiritual connection
with the land, e.g. Māori want to build
homes on land they connect with
including intergenerational farmers or
family houses 5
Others, 1
Nature: 1 or 5 Extent = personal 1
If 5 for people, then probably
no alternative
Yes
Inspirational
and
educational
People sometime say they got the
inspiration for a house design from
nature, but that wouldn’t directly impact
quality, suitability or affordability 1 or 2
Housing may be more suitable if close to
natural areas for education, inspiration.
However, person dependent
Nature: Indirect and small (1–2) Extent =
personal 1
Inspiration from other things
or private things to make
housing more suitable
Sub: 1
No
Food Provision of food doesn’t impact on
quality, suitability and affordability of
housing.
Nature: 1
No subst. No
Fibre Some housing is made from wood so
could impact quality, suitability or
affordability directly 4
Insulation made from wool, direct impact
but small 4
Timber for housing important for quality,
affordability
Nature: Direct and small (4). Extent:
individual, but most housing in NZ has
some part made from wood 3
Substitute other types of
food, crops
Some alternatives of
different quality: concrete
However, some housing
needs may not have suitable
substitutes like framing or
roofing structure 4 or 5
Sub: 2 or 4
Yes, likely would
fall out as a
maybe. While
some
alternatives
there are some
things that are
no/few
alternatives, e.g.
framing and
roofing
structure,
flooring (esp. in
NZ)
Wildfoods Provision of wildfood could influence
some housing pr location of suitability for
certain people (hunting, fishing).
Nature: Indirect and small (2) Extent: local
1
Subst. other food 1 No
- 117 -
ES/NCP Housing: The quality, suitability, and affordability of the homes we live in.
Does [ecosystem service] impact on
people’s (can split by sector, e.g.
urban, famers, etc.) [well-being
domain] directly or indirectly and what
is the size of that impact (small/large)?
What is the extent of that impact or
how many people are affected (based
on number of regions or population)?
Is there a substitute for the
[ecosystem service] service
important for [well-being
domain]?
If yes, is there a cost-
effective substitute or a
similar alternative option?
Include in
assessment*
Freshwater Readily access to good quality freshwater
impacts housing prices because the cost
to connect is lower, filtration costs are
lower, through better health (indirect),
direct 4
Provision of freshwater important for
housing quality 2
Nature: 2 or 4 Extent: localised issue 1
Filtering, trucking in from
further away, infrastructure
But many subst via water
tanks, water infrastructure
Sub: 1
No
Pharmaceuticals
etc
Not important for housing 1
No
Fuel (renew) &
energy
Need fuel to heat housing and cook food
so if you don’t have access to heating fuel
then house isn’t suitable
Solar energy, wind energy, good for
quality/affordability of housing (3)
Energy for electricity generation. Direct
4/5
Nature: 3 to 5 Extent: localised but
probably impacting <50% of population
2 or 3
Alternative fuel sources,
renewables. Expensive for
some industries and people
to transition
May require RC or gov
intervention for
infrastructure
But many subst, from
electricity and power
companies 1
No
Ornamental
resources
How pretty houses are? 1
Not important for housing 1
NA No
Genetic
resources
1
Not important for housing 1
NA No